Should Trump Pardon Julian Assange or Edward Snowden?

Presidential pardons are a contentious topic, especially when they involve individuals who have been indicted for leaking classified information. In the case of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, there is a pressing debate over whether a new presidential term would bring about such pardons. This article delves into the complexities and considerations surrounding this issue.

The Legal and Ethical Considerations

A sitting president is the only individual who can issue a pardon. In order for this to happen, Trump would need to be re-elected. This leads to a series of complex considerations, including legal and ethical implications.

Presidential pardons are generally issued after a person has:

Been convicted of a crime Acknowledged wrongdoing Expressed remorse for the crime Served a significant part of their sentence Or when innocence is likely

These pardons are not intended to be issued preemptively, allowing a president to self-pardon. The idea that a president would pardon someone else involved in similar crimes without fulfilling these conditions seems highly problematic.

Trump's Early Thoughts and Reactions

During his presidency, Trump did consider releasing Assange. He ultimately abandoned the idea when faced with opposition from a large number of Republican members of Congress, who threatened to withdraw their support permanently.

Even if Trump were to regain the presidency, he would likely consult with Vladimir Putin, his ally, before making such a decision.

Snowden's Role and Importance

Edward Snowden played a significant role in exposing the corruption and illegal activities of government agencies, particularly the Obama administration. His actions were crucial in exposing government surveillance and abuse of power. While his actions were illegal, his revelations were seen by many as necessary to maintain transparency and accountability.

Assange, on the other hand, was criticized for his actions, which some view as an attempt to create disruption for the sake of disruption. His stance is often described as that of an anarchist, rather than a conscientious objector.

Deserving a Pardon?

There are differing opinions on whether Assange and Snowden deserve a pardon. Snowden's role in exposing illegal activities is widely acknowledged, and he is seen by many as a hero for whistleblowing. On the other hand, Assange is often criticized for being more focused on personal gain and disruption.

Assange's actions were primarily aimed at undermining the narrative of Hillary Clinton, while Snowden's were aimed at revealing the true extent of government surveillance. Both individuals have contributed to public discourse on transparency and privacy, but their methods and motivations differ.

Logic and Motivation Behind Pardons

The prospect of pardoning Assange and Snowden is further complicated by the current political and legal landscape. There is no clear motive for Trump to issue such pardons, as it would not significantly benefit his re-election bid or advance Russian interests. In fact, it is unlikely to disrupt the Biden administration or provide any substantial advantage to Trump.

From a legal standpoint, it is important to note that absent trials and convictions, it is unclear whether pardons would be necessary. In the United States, convictions in absentia are not common, and there is a strong preference for fair and public trials.

In conclusion, the decision to pardon Assange and Snowden remains a complex issue. The legal and ethical considerations, coupled with the lack of clear motivation, make it unlikely that such pardons will be issued. The focus should be on ensuring a fair and transparent process for all individuals involved.