Jack Dugan
[email protected]
Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor and controversial whistleblower, stated recently that he would be willing to return to the United States if he were to be guaranteed a fair trial.

Snowden is the individual responsible for leaking thousands of classified government documents that brought the existence of an international mass surveillance network into the public eye. The mass surveillance collected civilian information such as phone calls and Internet traffic in bulk, calling into question the constitutionality of these antiterrorist measures.

Snowden’s actions could be considered espionage, which carries the potential of a hefty 30-year sentence. At a conference via Google Hangouts, Snowden stated that if he were to face a jury, his defense would be that of acting in the interest of the American public. Though the legality of both Snowden’s leaks and the NSA’s domestic stalking could be debated for ages, it seems the Justice Department isn’t too concerned about putting him on trial.

The Guardian reports, “Snowden has previously spoken of making offers to the government to return home and his willingness to discuss a plea deal and even go to jail. But in an interview on BBC Panorama last year, the whistleblower said the U.S. Justice Department had made no effort to contact him.”

RELATED: Supreme Court nominations, Congressional tantrums

The activist has been in exile in Moscow for more than three years since the leaks. He has become an international symbol of civil resistance and postured as a messiah figure for digital rights. Time nominated him as runner-up as their “person of the year” for 2015. He was second only to the holy pope himself.

The information made public by Snowden set forth an international debate that’s asking a crucial question in our technologically driven age: Is sacrificing digital privacy worth the promise of increased national security?

The question resounds in cases as recent as the conflict between Apple and the FBI, in which the FBI demands that the company develop software to access secure data on the cell phone of one of the individuals responsible for the San Bernardino shootings in December. Apple has refused, stating that the software would essentially leave every iPhone on the market vulnerable.

Would the tech company have resisted the FBI demands, which would undoubtedly aid the agency in its investigation, had Snowden not brought about those revelations? He’s put the notion in the national consciousness that perhaps the government cannot be trusted with technologies of surveillance, which is hardly a crime.

The national perception of Snowden seems to be shifting in his favor. In response to the debates between Democratic presidential hopefuls, Snowden stated during an interview with Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter, “I did see the debate live. It was actually extraordinarily encouraging. In 2013, they were calling for me to be hanged. They were using the word ‘traitor’ and things like ‘blood on your hands,’ ” and later, “Nobody on the stage, as far as I know, used the word traitor now. In just two years, that’s an extraordinary change.”

The legality of his actions is vague, but accusations of treason are farfetched and sensational. It’s become evident that he would like to come home, and it seems now is the perfect time. Given the reverence he has garnered from civil-rights advocates and organizations, domestic and abroad, perhaps the notion of trial should be dropped all together. The guilty don’t ask for trials.