Source: wikipedia |
Whatever the flaws of US government classification, secrecy and national security protocols--and they are flawed--they fundamentally derive from our legitimate system of representative democracy. Radical transparency in government is just as crazy as total secrecy, and the question of where to draw the line must be subject to democratic accountability, however kludgey and imperfect. Validating individuals who bypass this system based on their own idiosyncratic judgements might feel right when we happen to like the outcome, but it is deeply undemocratic and ultimately corrosive to organizational norms and culture.
This is not to say individual whistleblowing about classified government abuse is an absolute bad; indeed, it has great utility as a bureaucratic 'escape valve'. But the legal incentives must be set to ensure leaks only occur for the most extreme abuses: the legal 'cost' to would-be leakers should be high enough such that only the most committed, selfless patriots will actually pull the trigger.
In this sense, the system kinda sorta 'worked' in the case of Snowden. He fully understood the personal risks, and decided to proceed anyways. He's a hero precisely because of the intense and inevitable legal consequences, and to pardon him anytime soon would be to misunderstand the nature of his choice.