I would say leakers of this kind maybe shouldn't be actively pursued by the justice department outside of the USA. But either (1) pardoning; or (2) failing to pursue within USA; is a tall order.
It licences the principle that intelligence can be leaked without legal consequence "by the conscience" of the leaker.
Is that really how intelligence should be conducted? Most people are idiots; and do not know the ramifications of what they do.
It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable. Ie., it is Good that these leaks occured, but nevertheless, we require the leakers to pay some cost for it.
If that cost is "in practice" merely exile from the country, that seems a reasonable compromise.
If our justice system does not represent some bid for moral rightness (as flawed as it may be) then what is the point of justice at all? The leakers crimes is in these two cases were mostly pointing out others much weightier violations of the law. Those others have received no punishment, no cost for their crimes. Also, putting the word “merely” before ‘exiled indefinitely from your home’ is personally baffling to me. Especially since one of these people does not live in the US and “in practice” both their lives either were or still are in jeopardy.
Edit: I do think I understand your overall point though. Actually leaking information should be a very serious decision, and should not be taken lightly.
Civil disobedience isn't about avoiding the consequences of that disobedience; it's about doing the right thing even though it's illegal and requires punishment. If your concept of justice can account for civil disobedience like that, that is.
That is to say, if e.g. Snowden's actions were civil disobedience, it's not incoherent to say both that:
1. He was right to leak the info, and
2. He need not be pardoned in the name of justice.
Luckily for you this is exactly how it works in these instances. Those who do right action suffer punishment. While those who did wrong get a free pass to continue doing such.
And I do believe this is inconsistent if you believe that justice has anything to do with right and wrong actions.
Your argument is:
1. There are right and wrong actions.
2. Justice does not decide or even attempt at determining right and wrong.
3. Therefore doing something right or wrong has no bearing on the outcome of our justice system.
As an individual, what your are saying is important and I agree. We have to call upon ourselves to do the right thing in spite of the consequences. But often times civil disobedience seeks to change the injustice of the current system and if that system never changes or adapts as a result then the outcome will always be the same. This may have happened in the case with Snowden (though we can still correct it) but it has not been the same throughout history. I’m very glad that we did not simply exile all our civil rights leaders with no thought given toward bringing a greater sense of fairness to our judicial systems.
> It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable.
I take extreme exception to the idea that somebody should be punished for an act generally considered moral by the public for the purpose of dissuading others.
If some idiot takes it upon themselves, based on a pardon of Snowden, to reveal something not in the public interest and harmful to the state, let them be punished as a warning to others. Leaks of state secrets have been a reality since the beginning of civilisation, one more isn't going to destroy us.
It licences the principle that intelligence can be leaked without legal consequence "by the conscience" of the leaker.
Is that really how intelligence should be conducted? Most people are idiots; and do not know the ramifications of what they do.
It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable. Ie., it is Good that these leaks occured, but nevertheless, we require the leakers to pay some cost for it.
If that cost is "in practice" merely exile from the country, that seems a reasonable compromise.