The Guardian's riveting video interview with Edward Snowden this week ended with one of the biggest unresolved question in the debate over Snowden's decision to leak classified information about the NSA to journalists more than a year ago: what will happen if and when he can ultimately return to the United States?

Alan Rusbridger: Are you confident that if you went back to the US and were tried in front of a jury of your peers that you would be acquitted? Edward Snowden: I think it would be very difficult to find any 12 Americans in the United States right now who would uniformly agree that the last year's revelations about the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance programs did not serve the public interest.

It's hard to disagree with Snowden's characterization. The reporting on the Snowden files has led to a sea change in public opinion about privacy and, more than a year later, opposition to some of the NSA's most controversial practices is at an all-time high.

The near reversal in public opinion comes after Snowden's revelations revealed multiple intelligence officials lying to Congress and the Justice Department lying to the Supreme Court. They led to a slew of privacy and transparency lawsuits and pushed the House of Representatives to directly reject one of NSA's formerly-secret loopholes. They even sparked a mini-revolution at the tech companies – many of whom were accused of previously colluding with the NSA – causing them to significantly reform encryption protections for their users. Snowden's biggest detractors – including FISA court judges and Director of Intelligence James Clapper – have come out and admitted that the debate stemming from his leaks was important. President Obama remarked, "One thing I'm certain of: this debate will make us stronger."

Yet amazingly, if Snowden came back to the US for a trial, none of those facts would likely be heard by a jury of his peers. Thanks to several lower court ruling and the incredibly broad nature of the Espionage Act – and like Chelsea Manning before him – Snowden would not be allowed to: tell any jury about his intent to inform the American public; make the government prove that his leaks actually harmed national security; or explain a single way in which the public has benefitted from his actions. And any remaining issues that he would be able to raise in his defense would likely be shrouded in deep secrecy, shielded from the public eye (and possibly the jury's) by the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Despite his likely inability to mount any meaningful defense to the government's charges – a fact acknowledged even by legal experts that are highly critical of Snowden's actions – prominent public officials like Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessor Hillary Clinton have repeatedly stated that, if Snowden truly believes that he is a whistleblower, he should come back to the US and tell his story to a jury. (It's difficult to determine whether such statements are simply ill-informed or deliberately deceptive, but the first whistleblower in US history to be charged under the Espionage Act, the legendary Daniel Ellsberg, vehemently disagrees with them and has condemns their fundamental misreading of the law.)

With no option for a fair trial– as Snowden said in this Guardian interview, "we've asked the government again and again to provide a fair trial and they've declined" –it's time to renew the discussion about amnesty for Snowden. Since the New York Times editorial board's powerful call for amnesty, the question has largely faded from public view – even though the debate about the NSA's programs has continued to move forward and even expand.

Just yesterday, a former high-ranking State Department official revealed to the readers of the Washington Post the existence of another huge – yet largely secret – legal loophole that the NSA is using to conduct surveillance on untold numbers of Americans. He wrote:

Based in part on classified facts that I am prohibited by law from publishing, I believe that Americans should be even more concerned about the collection and storage of their communications under Executive Order 12333 than under [the Patriot Act].

This newest story, like countless others, might never have come to light without the push of Snowden's leaks. Yet representatives in Congress and their challengers in the mid-term elections – many of whom are commendably campaigning against NSA mass surveillance – will barely utter Snowden's name, let alone call for the sorely-needed Espionage Act reforms that would allow journalists' sources to adequately defend themselves in court.

The top humans rights official at the United Nations praised Snowden's actions this week and suggested that he should not be forced to stand trial in the US. It's time for those in the US media and the DC establishment to do the same. Why, at the same time we are having a historic debate that so directly affects democracy, would we allow the citizen who is responsible for that debate to serve decades in jail?

Disclosure: Trevor Timm is the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation. Edward Snowden joined the organization's board of directors in February of 2014.