Of course they do. The thing is that Snowden's status makes him a huge asset for every foreign power out there. Who knows where he will go. The US government would be smart to give him immunity to prosecution for this act (and merely take away his security clearance) just to keep that from happening.
Not really. Make sure it is an official assurance by the US government. Make sure that the press gets copies. Then return to the US. I don't think they can prosecute after giving official assurance not to in exchange for his return. Maybe even demand that they make the offer in a press conference by the Attorney General. My understanding is that such might actually be thrown out of court.
>I don't think they can prosecute after giving official assurance not to in exchange for his return.
Why not? If they then arrested him, what would we do about it? Nothing. And, of course, they could always just use some nonsense charge if they want to pretend they were following their own made up rules.
We grow up wanting to believe that rules, constitutions and so on are firm, solid entities we can depend on, but it's all just an illusion. It's no more real than those in power allow it to be.
I'm sure they could find something to arrest him for afterward if they liked, or find an ally to request extradition. Presumably nobody's going to give him immunity against future crimes, and I doubt extradition treaties even allow that.
But doesn't this go the other way too? I mean if he makes it worth the while of a foreign state to stay, they have tremendous power over him and can basically hold that over his head forever.
I think the fact that the US is now a country that people seek political asylum _from_ is going to globally change people's perspective on the country.
If he's given a presidential pardon, and that is then rescinded, presidential pardons don't exist any more [1]. The only question is then, is he really worth it?
[1] In case that's not clear, consider: who would trust them?
And who cares if pardons don't "exist" anymore? Presidents can still give them and jails will still let people out who get them. They can apply the rules how ever they like. Selective application of rules has been the norm for some time now.
Notoriety still provides some protection and the illusion of things being consistent is still important. More likely if they want to go that far, they will look for something else unrelated to charge him with, like wire fraud or something.
That could be deterred by a threat to leak more, but then that becomes a dangerous game for both sides.
