Human rights organizations have mounted a campaign urging President Barack Obama to grant a pardon to whistleblower Edward Snowden, who led journalists to expose vast metadata surveillance practices by national security agencies. Many wonder whether it is time that he be pardoned. He should not.
It’s only been three years since Snowden’s leaks revealed a deeply troubling pattern of data collection by the National Security Agency, the particulars of which are still being scrutinized, as are concerns that Snowden’s leaks placed U.S. security interests in jeopardy. Until a fuller picture of the ramifications of his acts is clear, it would be detrimental to take executive action that would confer exoneration for what he did, and how he did it.
In the minds of Snowden’s supporters, the ends of his mission justified the means. The means, however, involved criminal behavior of the highest level. He stole millions of classified records and worked to make them public in violation of anti-espionage laws. In addition, he broke his contract and violated his oath as a contractor for the NSA. To say none of that matters would constitute an unprecedented message that tampering with the nation’s most vital security interests is fine as long as a person believes there is a good reason to do it, and some others agree.
In Snowden’s case, it’s clear his illegal disclosures served an important public interest. Raising the curtain on the practice of blanket intrusion into Americans’ personal communications under the auspices of homeland security was an exposé of historic proportions.
Yet, there is still much in the way of gray area in the case of Edward Snowden. To his admirers, he acted out of altruism; to his critics, his acts were self-serving. He has received refuge in Russia, which ironically is not known for a traditional appreciation of individual privacy rights. But Snowden and his lawyers have a strong point when they argue that the 19th-century law he is charged with violating doesn’t allow for a defendant to mount a defense that his illegal actions served a higher purpose. In the case of treason, there is no protection for whistleblowers, but the case of Edward Snowden is not your typical case of treason, or your run-of-the-mill act of civil disobedience.
Snowden is charged with three separate felonies which could result in many years in prison if convicted. He should face the charges. Only after the judicial process runs its course would it be appropriate to consider a pardon. Whether protection of civil liberties is a higher value than protecting national security is not a simple yes-or-no question. Snowden may deserve some level of absolution, but the serious nature of his transgressions argues against a grant of unconditional forgiveness by way of presidential pardon.