Why does the United States constitution grant the president the power to grant pardons and reprieves? I'd argue that it's for cases exactly like this one. Where someone indeed broke the law, but did the right thing in doing so. We want people to do what is right, not shake our heads tragically and say that the law is the law, and must be followed blindly even if it means punishing a hero for his heroic deeds.
I'd further say that it's the responsibility of the president to use his or her constitutionally granted powers for this purpose, and say that a president that refuses to use the powers of the presidency for the purpose they were intended for is a simply bad at the job of being president.
Snowden didn't break the law. He uncovered other people breaking the law. If it is illegal to do something (like the NSA surveillance techniques) and that something is done then the rest of the laws surrounding state secrets automatically become devoid. That is the only way a sane working democratic society can function. If it is illegal to uncovered illegality then it sets a precedent that every witness to a crime will have to be tried as a defendant. The Snowden situation is absurd and anyone who says he broke the law is revealing themselves as the enemy of the people and of the country.
Despite an appeals court decision on illegality, because of the way that Congress revamped what was previously Section 215's language, and ended some of the previous programs, it has not been officially taken that what they did was illegal - that is, named as culpable certain groups or individuals that broke stated laws.
As a result, under common law and procedures of the courts/congress, technically the only one who has broken a law was Snowden.
I'm not arguing right or wrong, I am just say that you are technically wrong under legal statute.
My comment was more a reflection on how messed up a system is if this is how it works. Morally the law is unjust therefore it can't be right and I'm with MLK on this one:
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
I think what's being alleged, by the most sane portions of the other side, is that while some of the things he revealed may have been illegal, some of the things were not and so he should be punished (or at least stand trial) for revealing those things.
If Obama had the opportunity to do the opposite of pardoning him, I'm sure he would. In fact, a drone strike might be what he is thinking about if he wasn't in Russia.
A drone strike or other ways of covertly assasinating Snowden always felt like the trope USGOV should follow if this was an action movie, but it doesn't make much sense in the real world. Mysterious death would only piss off the public even more, and right now the situation is perfectly OK - Snowden is marginalized and harmless. He lives in a far-away land, whatever damage he could do he has already done, no government will ever let him near any data again - he's just a John Doe with no relevance to anything. Not pardoning him keeps it that way.
I'd further say that it's the responsibility of the president to use his or her constitutionally granted powers for this purpose, and say that a president that refuses to use the powers of the presidency for the purpose they were intended for is a simply bad at the job of being president.