Whether the U.S. government should grant Edward Snowden immunity is a divisive issue, with supporters arguing he performed a public service by exposing government surveillance abuses and should be treated as a whistleblower, while opponents contend he is a traitor who damaged national security by stealing and releasing classified information and should face prosecution. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) support immunity, highlighting his role in revealing wrongdoing, whereas groups like The Heritage Foundation advocate for prosecution, arguing his actions put national security at risk.
Arguments for Granting Immunity/Pardon
Public Service/Whistleblowing:
.
Supporters argue Snowden's disclosures were essential for public knowledge of unchecked government power and served a vital role in a democracy, making him a patriot and whistleblower, not a traitor.
Abuse of Law:
.
Some believe that the government officials Snowden revealed were breaking the law and should not be the ones to prosecute the person who exposed their conduct.
Lack of Fair Trial:
.
Concerns exist that Snowden could not receive a fair trial in the U.S. due to his status as a fugitive and the likely pre-trial confinement and lack of opportunity to present his case to the public.
Antiquated Laws:
.
His case highlights how outdated laws like the Espionage Act do not offer sufficient protection for intelligence whistleblowers and can be used to punish individuals with legitimate concerns.
Arguments Against Granting Immunity/Pardon
National Security Damage:
Opponents, including intelligence officials, assert that Snowden's theft of highly classified and sensitive documents caused significant harm to national security and betrayed public trust.
Criminal Act:
His actions are viewed as criminal, involving the theft and unauthorized distribution of classified information, and he should be held accountable under the law.
Fugitive Status:
Snowden is considered a fugitive from justice who fled the country to