In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means.

Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.

He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.

Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command and then attempted to go over it, so much so that there was a process begun to review his actions for discipline/reduced security clearance.

He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED, and, as widely acknowledged by those who should have had oversight (but did not effectively have it until post-Snowden) after his leaks, those concerns should havs been taken seriously by that review process, but were not.

Furthermore, you must understand this: the damage that Edward Snowden caused to the United States was no more and no less than desperately necessary chemotherapy, because the NSA had grown CANCEROUS, and I'm absolutely not convinced it has been cured totally, though I'd be happy to see information otherwise.

Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal.

> He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED

No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.

No, he exposed a federal crime being committed by the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper.

He exposed how the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper committed perjury (a federal crime in this instance) by lying to Congress and the American people about mass surveillance.

Is the counter argument that senior government officials should be allowed to lie to Congress about surveillance of American citizens?

And from wikipedia[1]: "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony."

Clapper changed his story a few times but eventually described this as something like "I forgot what we were talking about" but only after the perjury was exposed. Attorney General Eric Holder basically said he just forgot something and no charges necessary. One interpretation of this is as overt government corruption. It's relevant that Holder recently said he believes Snowden performed a public service.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

Untrue. And, in fact, his revelations were instrumental in leading to at least one of the cases in which those things were found to be illegal.

Which is precisely why whether it was "legal", as defined by the NSA themselves, is irrelevant.

Bill Binney and Thomas Drake were both NSA whistleblowers who tried to go through proper channels, including superiors and the Congressional intelligence committees. Drake was charged after showing illegal spying documents to a journalist, but they dropped the case, eventually, and he ended up working at an Apple store.

Binney never revealed sensitive documents, and as a result, he wasn't able to get anyone to investigate his criticisms. But in retaliation for speaking up to Congress, the NSA revoked his security clearance and railroaded him out of business.

Peyton Manning and Assange are also good non-NSA examples of how whistleblowers are actually treated.

Finally, Snowden did not flee to Russia. He went to Hong Kong because of its strange quasi-independent status, and was trapped in Russia en route to Central America.

You mean the adversary state that is the only thing keeping Snowden from rotting in a military prison to never see the light of day again? How do you think that would have played out had he went somewhere "friendly" to the USA?

The "damage" that was done to the "national security" of the united states is more damage to the pride of those caught in illegal behavior than bona fide harm to America. It was a revealing to people that their government has been lying to them, loudly and repeatedly, something which is strictly positive.

[1]: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-s...

Unless you can point to a specific quantifiable thing that happened due to the information he had (because some people getting rightfully upset with their government's mass surveillance of its own people) I'd have trouble saying he caused any damage whatsoever.

And to the prior points, that's sort of what he'd need a pardon for, isn't it?

do you really believe that? prove it. what security incidents have occurred because of Snowden's revelations that would not have occurred otherwise?

I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world.

For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.

Also consider that Snowden did British citizens a favor by revealing how the GCHQ was ultimately spying on them, too.

Seems like a logical, though not desirable, no. He didn't, and I would argue couldn't, have had the time. From the time he fled until his passport was revoked, was a pretty short amount of time. Additionally, had he been caught before releasing the data we would never know the name Snowden, or the abuses that occurred.

I would say that the time spent sifting through journalists to find someone who was trust worthy was better spent. That person would then have a shield around them which would protect them, even if Snowden was captured.

So basically, if had stopped to do that before releasing, then the likelihood that we would have ever seen any evidence, let alone the correct set of evidence, is very small.

Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm.

EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s...

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...

Maybe. Ideally it could be spun as a sort of "costly signalling".

> and encourage subversive behaviour.

Not any and all subversive behavior; subversive behavior of the form "I have deep ethical concerns about what is being done secretly here, so I am making it public." I want people feeling comfortable coming forward in that situation even if I ultimately disagree with their concerns. Threat of such is an important check on abuse of secrecy.