Comment by nikcub
13 years ago
You need to have been convicted to receive a pardon, the petition should be not to prosecute.
Despite the semantics, this is a good idea to let the administration know that a lot of citizens do not consider what Snowden did to be a crime and support his actions.
Nixon received a "full, free, and absolute pardon" from Gerald Ford [0], despite not actually having even stood trial, let alone having been convicted.
[0]: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26847.html
It's not clear if this would have stood up in court, since Nixon was never prosecuted.
However, when the president of the United States issues a pardon, even one that is of questionable legality, it's still a powerful statement: Ford placed the power and influence of the Oval Office in between Nixon and any prosecutor.
This petition suggests a similar maneuver with Obama and Snowden.
In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."
A petition not to prosecute, even if it was granted, would be worthless. If someone's pardoned, then they can't be prosecuted again. If they're just not-prosecuted, they can easily be prosecuted later.
It's also much less clear a statement, as there can be other reasons not to prosecute (lack of evidence, for instance).