1. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside sponsorship.
2. There's no guarantee that all the information that he took was released publicly. It would be helpful to know the extent of what was taken, and who else knows it.
3. It would be helpful to know what other intelligence services have asked him/taken from him.
4 "To encourage the others"
That has been debated and put to rest.
Our elected officials initially tried to say he was a Russian spy, but could not provide any evidence to support the claim.
If he were a foreign asset, like for the Russians, for example, he would not have acted the way he did. In fact, his handlers would have preferred that he continued to operate in secret and continue to feed them as much info as he can.
The NSA could guess what he had access to, but it's harder to know what he still has. That's a very scary known unknown.
More importantly, back in 2013, we --- including the USG --- knew far less than we know now.
(The question of whether Snowden is "harmless" is separable from the question of whether his actions are defensible or justified.)
I'm not suggesting that anything nefarious happened. I do not think Snowden is an FSB operative. I think he grabbed a giant tranche of documents, few of which he actually read, and handed them off to a small set of reporters he believed to be trustworthy.
But the USG has an interest (a) in confirming that and (b) containing the damage.
By the estimation of literally everyone involved, Snowden took documents whose publication isn't in the public interest. Snowden and his informal team of assistants have charged themselves with protecting intelligence secrets. It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role.
The argument has been made that a crucial difference between Snowden and other recent whistleblowers is his relative freedom to participate in ongoing conversations and inspire potential future whistleblowers.
Is it crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role?
But if recent whistleblower prosecutions are a guide, it quite obviously has a strong interest in part (c) -- to scare the living daylights out of anyone in their ranks who might even think of crossing them through whistleblowing.
You would agree that Snowden's ability to inspire future whistleblowers is a powerful way in which he isn't harmless to the USG? You might sincerely disagree with those who believe that this motive for getting him is at least as strong as the others. But this motive cuts into the legitimacy of the pursuit, and it should be part of your survey of the government's interests.
Snowden and his informal team of assistants
Do you believe Greenwald, et al. are collaborators and therefore should be prosecuted?
(I answered your first question upthread).
Why would you call them "his informal team of assistants?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-gr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/...
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_...
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-...
Taken literally from the entire first page on Google:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20gree...
At least one sitting U.S. Congressman called for it, David Gregory threw it directly in Greenwald's face on Meet the Press, the question was even brought to the U.S. Attorney General.
Against that backdrop if someone calls these journalists "assistants" to Snowden, it really shouldn't be out of bounds to ask about it.
> albeit perhaps unintentionally
You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators.
The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo.
(Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")
(His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)
Specifics?
Of course you could be cynical enough to say his video/voice etc is being faked as well, but you have to ground your beliefs somewhere and know there is a spoon when there is one...
To dishearten any future whistleblower, it's a matter of pride. He must pay and he must pay big like Manning.
Yeah. Besides petty vengeance, there's no point.
Ignoring Snowden would imply that espionage isn't a crime, or that in effect it only has a statute of limitations amounting to a misdemeanor offense, which isn't really a precedent any state wants to set.