Which reads:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Now, we agree that Snowden did not wage war on the several states — so let's exclude that and move on to the other condition:
adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
That's a bit more arguable — you assert that taking the info to Asia qualifies, others do not saying that there's no single incident to which the government can or will point as being compromised — Now in order to secure a conviction of Treason, by the Constitution, such would have to be explicitly revealed in court to qualify as the overt act.
Now, there are people in our government that surly qualify for Treason: just look at the refusal to stop the invasion on our southern borders. That is aiding and providing comfort to the enemies of several States.
One person’s treason doesn’t exclude another’s. It’s a dicey situation to prove treason when dealing with classified information. If a person disclososes information of a top secret nature, the entire process must be classified. That’s really the quandary with Snowden.
The greater amount of materials are technical in nature and constitute material support of our nation’s enemies. His disclosure or Constitutional invasions of privacy are a small part and give a seeming basis of defense. The problem with that approach is that it disregards the nature of the greater portion of the stolen materials and his methods of disclosure.
Playing out my allegory, if I were in possession of knowledge of biological warfare, I would prepare a case to be presented to Congress and other authorities who have the clearance, authority and responsibility to investigate such activities. Of course, any such actions would provide actionable evidence against the whistle blower, and would necessitate proper operational and protective countermeasures against personal retribution. Obviously, it is life and death, but there are still ways to works within the confines of the law. If there are truly no people in the government who could be trusted to pursue such matters, then truly the country is beyond salvation.
I cannot tell you Snowden’s motivation, but only judge his actions. His actions are not those of a concerned patriot who puts country over self, but a coward who is willing to compromise his country for personal gain.
Everyone with clearance knows the definition:
Top Secret classification level “shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
It it not up to the general worker to decide when and how such material is disclosed and the unauthorized disclosure of such material does not constitute declassification. Even if I knew of a direct, now public, source, I cannot, by law and by oath, direct someone to it.