My reason for focusing on his personality and the associated motivations is because his public interviews make it appear that it is his very beliefs that motivated him to do what he did. I do not dispute that he might believe some of this stuff — at least currently — but I maintain it is essential to consider the psychology of his actions if we (the public, the press) want to canonize him as the Patron Saint of Transparency. It is clear to me that the idealism he espouses is merely a means to an end and that the end he is after is notoriety/importance/legacy.

The scale and sheer number of documents that he turned over is what causes him to cross the line from public servant to traitor. How fully did he grasp the implications of turning over material that showed the NSA spying on an erstwhile NATO ally? If he knew exactly what he turned over, then he was making a very serious mistake in judgement. He isn’t a Mark Felt or Daniel Ellsberg. They made targeted releases of information, and did not make themselves part of the story. I reckon there were people at the time (and still today) who called for their heads. History, however, vindicated their actions as being just.

I do actually think some of the releases have been good. They’ve caused the NSA to shape up and stop being so lazy. Getting a back door and sucking everything in, that is what the Gestapo would do. It’s lazy and it does not produce high caliber signals intelligence professionals — so hopefully the reforms pushed by congress will cause the NSA to get back at its professional roots.