In its New Year's editorial, The New York Times has articulated its opinion that Edward Snowden deserves some form of clemency for doing his country "a great service."
This editorial, as well as others of a similar nature, have prompted 'patriots' on both the right and left to push back against such a notion, given Snowden's law-breaking and failure-to-man-up exodus. Those who argue against Snowden receiving any type of clemency are, for sure, ignoring the severe government misdeeds his whistleblowing has revealed to the American public.
However, more importantly, those who argue against such clemency are ignoring the past; specifically, the nature of those who have been pardoned by past presidents. Below are three individuals who have received presidential pardons or commutations. These acts of clemency alone, given the contexts, are enough to make the case for Snowden, though I'll make the case myself as well after their brief presentation.
Samuel Loring Morison
From 1974-1984, Morison was an intelligence analyst at the Naval Intelligence Support Center (NISC), where he specialized in Soviet vessels. Frustrated that the public was being kept in the dark about the advanced nature of Soviet military capabilities, he stole classified images and leaked them to Jane's Defene Weekly.
Upon his capture by the FBI, Morison was charged with espionage (like Snowden) and theft of government property. It was never established that Morison provided classified documents to a hostile entity, and Morison argued that his motivation was to sway public opinion for an increase in the U.S. military budget.
President Clinton pardoned Morison in 2001, even though the CIA strongly opposed it.
Eugene V. Debs
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Debs was a one of the most prominent union leaders in the country, helping to found a number of unions, including the American Railways Union – one of the country's first industrial unions. He served six months in prison for his role in the famous Pullman Strike.
However, Debs also inspired the ire of his government for his opposition to World War I. As a noted orator, Debs made speeches against the Wilson administration's advancement toward war, and in 1918 urged citizens to resit the administration's military draft for World War I.
President Wilson called Debs a "traitor to his country," and like Snowden, Debs was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. The ten counts of sedition led to a ten-year prison sentence, though he only served three years after having his sentence commuted by President Harding.
G. Gordon Liddy
Liddy coordinated the 1972 infiltrations into the Democratic National Committee's Watergate complex – the scandal which brought down Nixon's presidency. At Liddy's behest, burglars sought to steal DNC documents and plant wiretaps within the government complex for nefarious purposes.
He was convicted of burglary, conspiracy and illegal wiretapping, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 1973, though President Carter commuted his sentence in 1977. Liddy served only four years.
The nature of his crimes, and charges, are unlike Snowden's, which is precisely the point. Liddy's subversive actions had one purpose: to cause harm to this country by attacking one of its political wings, thus weakening our democracy. In contrast, Snowden's motivation has been to strengthen our democracy by bringing to light government abuses.
And Now, Edward Snowden
Unlike Morison, whose leaks revealed Soviet military capabilities, Snowden's leaks have revealed U.S. government law-breaking and the abuse of American citizens' privacy rights. Like Morison, Snowden's intent has been to create a transparent window through which the public can view, and evaluate, government secrets. Both were charged with espionage as a result.
Unlike Debs, whose opposition to the military draft put him in the Wilson administration's crosshairs, Snowden's actions have not called for Americans to break the law. Rather, his whistleblowing has compelled Americans to argue that the U.S. government should not break the law and constitutional precepts. Like Debs, Snowden was charged under the 1917 Espionage Act for opposing his government.
Unlike Libby, whose conspiratorial actions were intended to harm the functioning of our democracy by sabotaging the Democratic Party, Snowden has sought to strengthen our democracy by giving citizens the information they need to understand the actions of their elected leaders vis-a-vis bulk surveillance and government intrusion.
Libby and Snowden are nothing alike. One sought to do damage to our country. The other has sought to champion Americans' privacy rights and argue for "far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community," as the NYT put it.
If the three figures above deserve clemency, logic dictates that Snowden deserves much more. Particularly when one considers the mind-boggling abuses Snowden's leaks have revealed, and the resulting national – and world – conversation which has resulted.
To think otherwise is to take the view of intelligence director James Clapper, who has committed felonies by lying to Congress:
Snowden's law-breaking must be punished. My law-breaking and the that of the NSA? It's necessary for the good of the nation.
If Clapper's is the position one would like to take, that's one's right. However, if Clapper is indicted on felony charges in the future, I will fully expect those to come out and call for Clapper's pardoning.
After all, he was just doing what he thought was best for the country.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.