When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind: Being a traitor does not mean someone is wrong or deserving of punishment. The implication is that a person's country is always right, and also that if he had been a Russian spy, he would have been a patriot. No. Right and wrong are not governed by national borders and laws.

> When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind

I don't think Snowden was right. He was, in fact, wrong as a matter of the law and the Constitution. His concerns were misplaced. Okay, that's fine. But then, rather than doing the honourable thing and resigning — and keeping his oath — he betrayed his oath, he betrayed the trust placed in him, stole information he had no right to access in the first place and fled, first to Communist China and then to Neostalinist Russia (rather neatly giving the lie to his claims to care about human rights: the one government harvests organs from religious dissidents and the other detonated bombs in apartment buildings in order to solidify political power).

I am thoroughly convinced that a) not all Snowden has alleged is true; b) that which is alleged and true is legal and constitutional; and c) that which is both alleged and true is not something so immoral that despite being legal and constitutional it should be avoided anyway. Moreover, I am convinced that his behaviour meets the standard for treason.

What would you say is the point of having the power to pardon if doing something illegal is never justifiable, or if our justice system is infallible?

If our laws are ever unjust, or our justice system ever fallible, the argument "it was illegal" cannot be used to justify whether something was moral. US law is a terrible basis for morality and that's a super weak argument.

Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things.

"He was, in fact, wrong as a matter of the law and the Constitution."

Was he? The Constitution provides us right to basic privacy against searches without warrants and due process for executive action. NSA was violating one with surveillance tech and other with parallel construction. Congress is supposed to hold executive branch accountable but was throwing away GAO's reports on abuses. Executive Branch was supposed to tell Americans truth about how they were approaching the surveillance issue and its affectiveness. They lied about both. They also had FBI raid the houses of those who used internal channels to complain about actual corruption like Trailblazer & ignoring Constitution. Finally, the judicial system that's supposed to hold other two in account was (a) provided with disinformation and (b) told in Jewel case that it had no business making rulings on the topic. So, Congress and Executive were corrupt in this case with Judicial powerless.

Only thing left in Constitution is leaks (First Amendment) with a follow-up of jury nullification, Presidential pardon, or selective application of 2nd Amendment. Leaks while in hiding hoping for first two is nicer than number three. I agree with critics that he shouldn't have leaked foreign ops and maybe should get less leniency for that. However, the whole first paragraph of my reply is guilt across the board esp in Congress and Executive branch. He shouldn't be tried unless they are for the crimes he revealed. He should also get leniency for bringing the domestic abuses to our attention. Binney et al, who played it responsibly, should get full immunity plus their paychecks for their service.

"Moreover, I am convinced that his behaviour meets the standard for treason."

Treason is killing 6,000+ Americans, maiming more, and costing us trillions in liabilities by use of disinformation to start a war for political purposes. That's straight-up murdering us. Snowden did a mix of whistleblowing on domestic stuff Alexander/Clapper lied about under oath, whistleblowing on key foreign stuff that could've damaged us due to stupidity of politicians, and a traitor on foreign, operational stuff that's the whole point of NSA's existence (as in: legitimate). So, he's a mixed bag with worst result being they get less automated spying on some groups. (shrugs)

Note: I also don't fully trust him as his statements changed a few times, he's a trained spy, and he conned his coworkers for their passwords. He's sneaky when he thinks it's justified for his mission. My calculations above are strictly based on statements/actions of corrupt government vs specific things he leaked. He looks like a saint compared to them, esp in terms of innocent blood on hands.

Well, except in law of course. Then, traitor == wrong and deserving of punishment. Its in the US constitution in fact.

Laws change. The constitution gets amended. There's such a thing as a "positive" defense - guilty, but with a reasonable cause. A jury can even technically nullify a law if they feel it's the right thing to do.

Unveiling a trove of illegal projects being undertaken by our government against our wishes would fall into this category in my mind.

I wish it were so. But I'm thinking it may be impossible to forgive. Prosecutors may resort the the Supreme Court too. If someone technically guilty of treason is found anything but guilty by a lower court, I don't see the Supreme Court having any alternative but to overturn it. But what do I know.

In the US, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be retried for the same crime. So prosecutors would be unable to appeal to a higher court.

Jury nullification. It's meant for exceptions. Dangerous, but useful for cases like this.

How about this? We can try Snowden if we similarly convict all government heads guilty of perjury or damage to the United States. Bush and Obama Administrations will have a lot of people in line. So will Congress. So many people with so many trials that Snowden might get lucky and hit statute of limitations. Congress and Presidential candidates won't because they take bribes or perform fraud on a regular basis. ;)

Funnier thing about many of the Snowden opponents on TV is they can't stand that he leaked our capabilities to media for responsible disclosure but are fine with U.S. military leaking similar things to media on daily basis just to brag about what they can do. If revelation denies ability to use tool, then the U.S. military chiefs deserve longer sentences for giving enemies even more details. Especially drone feeds that send stuff unencrypted which terrorists already intercept with cheap equipment. Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy during live operations. ;)

If you believe he revealed this information for the purpose of debate, so the people can be made aware and have a choice/opinion in the matter, then you have to admit that he has acted on behalf of the country. It is unquestionable that he betrayed the government, but the distinction between government and country is an important one.

Appreciate you putting the unpopular opinion. How id he a traitor. What did he gain from this? Stop. right there what ever you think he gained is nothing compared to what he lost. I don't think he should be publicly pardoned because it would send the wrong message to copy cat idiots but I would not call him a trator