For me, Snowden is a hero, having revealed intolerable actions by Congress, Courts, the Executive branch, and collusion among the two official Parties.
Not everyone agrees with me.
But that's okay. We live in a pluralistic society where not everyone has to believe the same thing. Reasonable people can disagree. That you disagree with me doesn't mean that one of us is stupid, evil, or otherwise unreasonable. It simply means that we disagree.
Consequently, according to polls, Snowden only served half the country, the country that wants less domestic surveillance. Snowden worked against the interests of the other half the country, the half that votes for (fascist) politicians like Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham.
In other words, rather than fighting for everyone's interests, Snowden only fought for his own interests, against the interests of others. That's not noble. His ends don't justify his means, which were clearly illegal. That his interests are my interests doesn't change this.
That a president would grant clemency to Snowden would be evil. It would invite everyone to break their word (and the law) to promote their politics. That invites chaos. That the powerful would then pardon those with the right politics would be wholly corrupt.
However, this argument would change if the Supreme Court rules in Snowden's favor. Snowden's highest, most important oath was to "defend the Constitution", and it's obvious that the only way the case could get to the Supreme Court was through leaks. By definition, the Constitution is above politics -- even if you disagree with it. Should this happen, should the Supreme Court (not just lower courts) rule in his favor, then Snowden deserves a full pardon and medals of honor.
But until/if that happens, he is merely a lawbreaker/oathbreaker who belongs in jail.
I write this because there are a lot of people writing about whether Snowden should/shoudn't be given clemency. All of them are based on whether they agree with his "ends", rather than than discussing whether they agree with the "means". All I'm arguing here is that the "ends don't justify the means". The only thing that can justify Snowden's means are whether the Supreme Court agrees, not whether any of us personally like/dislike Snowden's ends.