Basically, yes. Also, the evidence shows that he didn't one day "see something wrong and decided to report it" as the narrative claims. He quit a job on one contract to take another job (which he lied about his experience to get) and then stole information from there before releasing it all roughly 6 months after he was hired. Some reports I have seen estimate that roughly 90% of the information he released was from while he was working at Dell (the previous job) on a DoD contract (I was still DoD at the time so it was of "interest" to us what he released). Additionally, there are 0 records of him trying to report it through any channel and he has said in some interviews that he chose to go public "rather than" report it because he thought nothing would be done. By the way, contrary to the narrative, he didn't have one or two channels that ignored him (had he used them), he could have actually gone to any Senator or Representative with the information and still been protected (probably moreso since Congress would have been behind him).

Plus, as someone who held a clearance in the DoD (former interrogator), I will say it can be hard (especially for someone like those journalists who never held a clearance) to tell what can directly hurt someone else. Handing off NSA program documents could have potentially put the lives of CIA and NSA agents and sources around the world...but we would never know. Even the families of those people wouldn't know. All they would know is that their family member didn't come home.

Yeah, the narrative that he tried to follow the rules to get the "egregious" programs stopped is almost entirely false. He may have made one off-the-record attempt with a superior. He also once emailed someone that a test he took had a wrong answer in regards to Executive Orders being able to override laws, and that email got forwarded around until it hit an NSA lawyer and they stated that he was correct. EOs and laws carry the same weight, but EOs cannot override laws. And that was what he's referring to in a fair amount of his interviews.

Really? I was under the impression that he followed through some fairly extensive inquiries. I'll have to do some more research, but if what you say is true, then I might have to reevaluate my position again. If he didn't even attempt the proper channels, then my pardon 'offer' is off the table again.

Watch the Frontline special "The US of Secrets," to find out what happens to those who complained loudly enough.

Yes, I'll watch a multipart documentary to try and suss out the point you want me to learn.

Snowden complained loudly about a test answer. That's it.

You're very sure for someone who doesn't appear to have done much research on the subject.

The point in that riveting doc was simple, those that complained too loudly lost everything, thankfully not their lives.

I actually agree with you there. If you browse some of my older comment history, I made that exact point that he trusted a foreign journalist team to filter sensitive NOFORN and SAP information. However, I believe the net good that has come out of that disclosure, and the "I'm doing this to expose deep government malfeasance" as opposed to "The government sucks here's all the data" warrants the difference in treatment.

Edit: That being said, if we ever do get evidence that China or Russia did manage to get that data during his trip there, I'd change my tune immediately. That would be high treason, at least if it was intentional.

" That being said, if we ever do get evidence that China or Russia did manage to get that data during his trip there, I'd change my tune immediately. That would be high treason, at least if it was intentional."

I guess you'll be changing your tune when you find out China and Russia read the papers containing all the TS/SCI and ECI leaks. They definitely have the information. ;)