So now Snowden's acknowledged that his main goal at Booz Allen was espionage.

[pnwmom]

He took the job, in his own words, so he could have "access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked." In other words, he wanted to get information on our international spying. Why? Did someone else suggest this idea to him after he came forth with the powerpoint slides? Did someone else think he should go bigger? Greenwald? Wikileaks? Some other country?


His handlers, whoever they are, have been giving him poor advice. If he wanted Americans to debate internal surveillance, he shouldn't have provided such a huge distraction with his leaks about our spying on other countries -- leaks that are already damaging our diplomatic relations. Isn't he smart enough to be aware of that? Or does he just not care? What is his real goal, anyway? And how can he accomplish it from Ecuador -- where freedom of the press is a joke?


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-security-booz-idUSBRE95N12B20130624

He told the South China Morning Post on June 12 that he gained the job as a systems administrator because of the access it afforded him. The Post's article was published on Monday.

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden said, according to the article. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

[leveymg]

1. Espionage necessarily involves acting on behalf of a foreign power. This doesn't prove that at all.

In fact, it's consistent with his claim that he's been acting out of outrage at universal surveillance of Americans and allies. I do not recall Snowden ever said that he was only opposed to spying inside the U.S. If I'm wrong, show me.

[pnwmom]

2. You've been watching too many James Bond movies.

Or maybe you're mixing it up with treason. The legal definition of espionage doesn't require you to be working on a foreign power's behalf. (Though that certainly is possible in Snowden's case.) And the general definition doesn't either.

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/espionage.html

Espionage

: the practice of gathering, transmitting, or losing through gross negligence information relating to the defense of the U.S. with the intent that or with reason to believe that the information will be used to the injury of the U.S. or the advantage of a foreign nation

[Hissyspit]

12. O.k...

Prove intent.

[pnwmom]

16. That isn't required either. "Or with reason to believe" covers all the necessary ground. nt

[Hissyspit]

17. O.k...

Prove "reason to believe."

[pnwmom]

24. I'll leave that up to the jury. n/t

[jeff47]

26. TS label on the documents.

Please continue, Hissyspit.

[Hissyspit]

34. Seems rather vague to me.

[jeff47]

35. No, the Top Secret label means

that the documents contain information which "would cause exceptionally grave damage to the United States". That's literally the definition of what can receive a "Top Secret" designation.

You'd have a hell of a time arguing that someone who has received training in classified information would not know this. And if your argument is that it was improperly classified, that training also covers what to do in that situation as well.

You're left with arguing that Snowden's incredibly stupid, or he knew what he was doing.

[Hissyspit]

40. No, I was arguing how the law would be applied in this particular case.

I have never argued that he did not break the law. I'm sure he did. There are multiple charges.

People keep stating things as fact that are not necessarily fact.

[jeff47]

43. No, you were nitpicking the definition above

in an apparent attempt to make it not apply to Snowden.

People keep stating things as fact that are not necessarily fact.

Well, the "facts" in your nitpicks would require Snowden to have a severe mental defect, or the law would directly apply.

Does Snowden have a severe mental defect where he would not understand what "Top Secret" means?

[Hissyspit]

44. "Nitpicking" the definition is not important?

Really?

[jeff47]

46. Would you prefer a different term?

It's rather clear that the law is directly on point. Yet you were trying to argue Snowden would not know that leaking documents labeled "Top Secret" would cause any damage to the United States.

Pick whichever term you'd like to apply to that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. He swore an oath NOT to do what he has done...

in that document it would say "punishable to the fullest extent of the law". He violated his trust...

[still_one]

76. I guess it depends "what the meaning of if means". Sounds like that kind of defense you are making

[Hissyspit]

77. No.

But it's not that big of a deal. I just wanted clarity on people's interpretations.

[still_one]

79. I understand, and it is a valid question

[jmowreader]

60. This is from Executive Order 12356

Executive Order 12356 is titled "National Security Information." It has been in effect since April 2, 1982, which means Snowden had to have heard of it - when you receive your very first security briefing they tell you about it.

It says:

Part 1

Original Classification

Section 1.1 Classification Levels.
(a) National security information (hereinafter "classified information&quot shall be classified at one of the following three levels:
(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.

Mr. Snowden has been told, on a number of occasions, that Top Secret information can reasonably cause...well, see (1) above. He chose to release information classified thusly to the general public. If he didn't "intend" to cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the national security, he wouldn't have done what he did.

[Hissyspit]

62. Thanks, jmow.

I disagree with this interpretation: "If he didn't "intend" to cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the national security, he wouldn't have done what he did," as too absolut

...but appreciate the info and the lack of insult.

[still_one]

78. Then why release the information at key times, ie, when Obama was talking to the Chinese President

about their hacking and during the G20

His actions certainly show he was trying to inflict damage on the U.S.

At least that is my view

[Hissyspit]

82. That's the logical coincidence fallacy.

Any time during the Obama administration arguably could have resulted in "suspicious timing."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[still_one]

90. The information released specifically about China when he was talking with China

and the information released about g20 spying just when the g20 was getting under way

It is not a coincidence, it was intended to do the most damage to the US

It was timed for those events

[DeltaLitProf]

19. Prove intent to have the info be used "to the injury" of the US.

n/t

[pnwmom]

25. No one has to prove his intent. All that needs to be shown is a "reason to believe."

And the prosecutor won't have any problem with that.

[DevonRex]

3. And he went to China to give it to them and is giving it to others. More:

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/exclusive-snowden-sought-booz-allen-job-gather-evidence-nsa

That means he lied to the American public about why he was doing this. And if people would just check the facts, they'd know he lied about the programs, too.

[Hissyspit]

14. So far, as far as we know, he only gave some things to journalists.

[DevonRex]

18. LOL. Did you just fall off the Christmas tree?

There's an article in the NYT today. No way in hell would China let Snowden leave without getting every drop off his computers. Maybe they even left a little for Russia if it serves their purpose for Russia to have some information, too. If not, then Greenwald had better be very careful. Since everyone knows Snowden transmitted information to him.

[Hissyspit]

20. No, I didn't.

So you don't actually know what you claim to be true is true? That's what I thought.

"He went to China to give it to them."

[DeltaLitProf]

21. If the Chinese forced him to give up the info involuntarily . . .

. . . could he still be found guilty of espionage?

[jeff47]

28. Yep. "Injury to the US" clause in the definition above. (nt)

[DevonRex]

31. Yes. I didn't just fall off the Christmas tree, either. He intended to steal national security

TE/SI information, SAYS he intends to give it to them in the article, chose China, Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, among his list of countries to flee to.

The guy's a fucking traitor. If Greenwald told him to dig up that court ruling, which is misleading, since it actually shows how oversight corrects problems, then I'll throw Greenwald in there too. They were in contact before Snowden even took the job at BAH.

[pnwmom]

32. He voluntarily shared documents with the Chinese newspaper.

The government there can read.

[randome]

45. PROVE THAT!

Oh. Sorry.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[pnwmom]

49. LOL

[Hissyspit]

50. Why?

No one said he didn't.

[pnwmom]

53. Guess you have to have a sense of humor. n/t

[Hissyspit]

56. I do.

[Hissyspit]

52. Um, that's what I said.

[Hissyspit]

48. No one said he didn't. That's not what DevonRex said.

[pnwmom]

51. I wasn't responding to what DevonRex said. n/t

[Hissyspit]

54. But DeltaLitProf was.

[pnwmom]

65. And DeltaLitProf wanted to know what would happen if China forced him to give up

documents involuntarily.

But that's kind of beside the point, because he VOLUNTARILY shared documents with the Chinese newspaper, which the Chinese government can read just as well as anyone else.

[mike_c]

4. so he set out to expose a great injustice and the surveilance state....

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. it is

when it embarrasses the current administration.

[mike_c]

7. yeah, that seems to be the overarching consideration....

eom

[pnwmom]

8. And then he let himself get diverted by an issue that would completely

overshadow it.

Assuming his motives in the first place were genuine, he made a huge mistake in switching gears to reveal international spying. Most Americans have no problem with that. (We know other countries are spying on us. We'd be stupid not to respond in kind.)

[mike_c]

13. so?-- it's all part and parcel of the surveillance state mentality, and WE are the "enemy..."

...they're trying to keep their secrets from. I'm sick to death of government secrecy. The consent of the governed is meaningless in a culture of obsessive secrecy.

And no, I do not accept the argument that we should spy on others because they must surely be spying on us. To paraphrase an argument I've heard here a lot lately, if we've nothing to hide, then we've nothing to worry about. It's the culture of secrecy itself that maintains the need for spying. It is so obsessive that as soon as the technology becomes available to turn the eye of Sauron onto our own citizens, the secret agencies get secret approval from secret courts under secret laws and begin secret monitoring programs to insure that, in the end, no one else has any secrets from them.

If what Snowden did is "espionage," then the beneficiaries are everyone else in the world, for whom a window on the cult of secrecy has been opened. And I say we need LOTS more espionage.

Justice Brandeis said it best: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

[pnwmom]

15. Apparently you've never had a bad sunburn. n/t

[mike_c]

29. perhaps, but my ass gets chapped on occasion....

[treestar]

39. How could that be?

this is inconsistent with that he saw bad things and exposed them. Now he admits he went in intending to leak.

My beef is with whoever gave him a security clearance.

[mike_c]

42. it's just that purposeful exposure of NSA spying is no different than spontaneous exposure....

Snowden's motives are not relevant to the central fact of the NSA's broad and unfocused spying on Americans. I don't care if he did it to get even with his poopie head supervisor. It doesn't make any difference at all. Snowden is a distraction, and a useful one for the secrecy barons.

I also don't care that the Chinese and the Russians and whomever are taking an interest in what his documents reveal about U.S. government espionage against them. Again, the relevant issue is the espionage itself, and the culture of obsessive secrecy that ALWAYS leads to authoritarianism and some flavor of totalitarianism.

I've said before-- if this is "espionage," then we need a lot more of it. Lift the rocks and shine a light underneath.

[randome]

47. "...the central fact of the NSA's broad and unfocused spying on Americans..."

Where do you get that from? Because Snowden told you what to think?

What did Snowden reveal about NSA spying?

One, that there is a legal warrant regarding phone metadata records. Which we already knew.

Two, that we spy on other countries. Also already known.

So what has Snowden showed us that supports the idea of the NSA's 'broad and unfocused spying'?

Answer: nothing. All we have to go on are his vague claims of "I saw things" and he has never specified what he saw.

In addition, he was a Systems Administrator, not an Intelligence Analyst so he was never even in a position to "see things" in the first place!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[mike_c]

58. OK, cool-- you evidently agree that he didn't reveal anything new...

...and confirmation isn't that big a deal if you already knew the NSA was spying, so what's the big deal? If this was common knowledge, then the administration's witch hunt for Snowden must be mostly about his causing them some embarrassment? Is that it? Because if everything they're doing is legal, transparent, and already well known, then, well, Snowden is simply guilty of stating the obvious.

Of course that's disingenuous. The extent and scope of surveillance was only surmised by most of us, and Snowden has confirmed that it's even more broad than most suspected, or at least more far reaching than I suspected after TIA was shot down. Further, he has shined a light into the secret world of secret courts, secret laws, secret warrants, and secret agencies, all under the auspices of an administration that pledged transparency, and which now pursues Snowden for delivering what they promised. They call Snowden a traitor for revealing to the American people our own government's contempt for civil rights.

The defense that NSA spying on Americans without probable cause is legal is also disingenuous. Are you seriously defending that sort of behavior?

[mhatrw]

72. Why not stop arguing about Snowden and start some OPs telling us how much you favor

the NSA's domestic spying programs?

Let's see how those threads go.

[treestar]

61. All I can say is how naive

Don't care if the Chinese or Russians have our confidential information? It's not being kept from us, it's being kept by us. We entrust certain people with it. We did not want Osama bin Laden to know we knew where he was. They weren't trying to keep that secret from you. We wanted to keep it secret from Osama.

[mike_c]

66. but they certainly ARE trying to keep secret the extent of surveillance without probable cause....

As for the contention that that's not being kept secret from us, but rather by us-- huh? The secret courts whose deliberations are concealed, the secret laws they administer but we don't know about, the secret warrants they issue for secret agencies to conduct secret surveillance on you and I-- we're keeping all that secret ourselves, from ourselves? Really? When did you get to contribute to that decision, because I didn't get the memo.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Edward Snowden is a US citizen who wanted to learn more about the US government.

While the Justice Dept has charged him with "espionage," trying to learn about one's own government to tell its people isn't the common definition.

[pnwmom]

10. He had taken an oath to protect classified data and instead he released information on international

spying, and released it specifically to interfere with our ongoing diplomatic efforts with China and Russia. This is clearly "espionage."

He could have learned more about our government simply by staying in his job. Or if he wanted to be a whistle-bower about the internal surveillance, he could have limited himself to that. Instead, he decided to go far afield into the realm of international spying. The question is why.

[Eric J in MN]

23. I don't agree about his motive.

Why do you say that he, "released it specifically to interfere with our ongoing diplomatic efforts with China and Russia"?

[pnwmom]

36. Timing. He released information on our hacking China while Obama was

meeting with Chinese negotiators to discuss Chinese hacking.

He released information on our spying on Russia just as Obama was beginning talks with Putin.

No way this was all a coincidence.

[Eric J in MN]

73. The US often negotiates with China and Russia. NT

NT

[pnwmom]

85. Not publicly, it doesn't. Not with Obama meeting with their leaders.

That's a big deal.

[treestar]

41. A lot of people have security clearances

It is not "trying to learn about one's own government." It has purposes.

[Hekate]

9. Kinda gives new meaning to the words "Snow job" after awhile

for sheer awesomeness.

I've been waiting for more word on his motives, and this is a doozy.

[markiv]

11. this will give Booz a bad reputation

'dont you fool, with mr booz'

[HipChick]

22. Not really...they are still getting new federal contracts

[Buns_of_Fire]

27. Booz Allen Hamilton got some 'splainin to do, that's for sure.

I would think it's a pretty uncomfortable position for a company whose current income depends on government contracts to be in.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Well, it worked and the snoops have been busted.

[snagglepuss]

33. Good for him. Snowden's actions reveal that BA is utterly incompetent.

Like every other for profit business BA cut corners to maximize profit.

[Recursion]

38. How do you figure? They didn't clear him (nt)

[snagglepuss]

55. He waltzed out with stashes of classified info. Why weren't systems in

place to tract downloads of classified material.

[pnwmom]

63. Good question. n/t

[Octafish]

57. Booz Allen's main goal is to make money.

And they, and their corporate parent, the Carlyle Group, make money off war.

Pretty NAZI of them, actually.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/12/bush-family-war-profiteering/

[allin99]

59. i could swear i posted this this morning and they said it was old news. lol

[lanlady]

64. here's the problem I have with this claim

He could not have heard from a Booz Allen recruiter that he would have access to this kind of information--no way in hell. No recruiter at Booz Allen or any other company would be in a position to disclose something like that to a candidate. Snowden could only have found that out or heard it from his customer, the NSA.

[pnwmom]

68. Depending on his level of clearance, he might have been told that before he went to work there.

Or he might have gotten the info from a helper of some sort.

[mike_c]

69. or this might all be a bullshit witch hunt by an administration that pledged transparancy...

...but delivered the most egregious and broad domestic surveillance program in U.S. history. The sunlight, Precious!-- it burns us....

[pnwmom]

70. Do you think he was lying to the newspaper about knowing he'd have the access when he took the job?

[mike_c]

74. I have no clue about that....

I don't know what he said and what he didn't say. In a culture of secrecy the truth becomes hard to discern. I'm not just dodging your question, either. My answer is that I don't know whether he said that or whether someone made it up. I don't know if something else he might have said was spun to produce desirable public discussion. I don't know whether I trust the multitude of conflicting reports I've read about Snowden's motives.

But NONE of that matters to me, frankly. I don't care if he was motivated by greed and megalomania-- not that there's any evidence of that, mind you. But Snowden's motives are irrelevant to the fact of NSA (and any other) broad surveillance of private citizens, whether in the U.S. or abroad, without probable cause. They're irrelevant to the secret laws and secret courts now operating in the U.S., directing secret agencies to conduct secret surveillance against damned nearly everyone they can target. Do you seriously defend that sort of secret surveillance? Not that it matters-- I mean, I'll still think it's wrong even if you think it's great stuff. But do you really like being monitored and spied upon? Really?

[pnwmom]

84. I've said repeatedly that I think starting a debate about the internal US surveillance

was a worthwhile cause; however, when he crossed the line into interfering with international diplomacy, he himself took the spotlight off internal surveillance, thereby helping to defeat what he claims is his cause.

[mike_c]

86. so let me get this correct-- because he released info about U.S. spying on foreign nationals...

...for no better reason than that they used their phones or the internet to communicate, you are ready to turn your back on "his cause," the unwarranted and obtrusive spying on private citizens without any probable cause at all? That's what it sounds like you're saying. Because Snowden did X, I'm not going to worry about the main information he released? I'm going to spend all my effort trying to discredit Snowden rather than ask why the NSA is logging my phone calls, because he "stepped over" some line or other? The real issue is Snowden?

I disagree. And the spotlight will only be off internal surveillance if folks keep trying to make Snowden himself the main issue. It really does sound like that's your primary motive. "His cause" will only be "defeated" if you and I stop demanding that the administration and the NSA come clean and worry about Snowden instead.

[pnwmom]

87. It doesn't matter much what a bunch of DU liberals think -- he's defeating his purpose

across mainstream America. A lot of people would have been listening to him who have now decided, based on his deliberate leaking about US spying activities, that he's a traitor.

[mike_c]

88. then they're fools....

They might very well not get a second chance to get the point, not if the administration has it's way with "leakers" and "whistleblowers."

[Life Long Dem]

67. Kenneth Ford only had a box in his house

Kenneth Wayne Ford Jr. was indicted under the Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) for allegedly having a box of documents in his house after he left NSA employment around 2004. He was sentenced to six years in prison in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

[mhatrw]

75. He got off lightly! When I was kid. we got hung for a punch card! n/t

[mhatrw]

71. So, for you, the issue is Snowden. Right?

For people who like me, Snowden's motivations and character are not the issue and are beside the point.

The issue is the breadth and scope of the NSA's and its private contractors' spying programs. What is your take on the breadth and scope of the NSA's and its private contractors' spying programs?

[pnwmom]

91. There are two separate issues. One is the internal surveillance, and I welcome

a debate on that issue.

And the other is Snowden's continuing release of documents related to US foreign policy, which I think cannot be ignored and deserves condemnation.

Unfortunately, his release of the latter documents is putting his motives into question and proving to be a major distraction from the discussion of internal US surveillance.

http://americablog.com/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-prism-russia-china-leak.html

I think Edward Snowden has damaged his cause by seemingly declaring all out war on spying – American spying, to be precise – which risks making him sound naive (as if the US can, or should, simply stop spying while Russia and China continue). But there’s a second problem to Snowden’s actions. By releasing information about the US spying on our #1 foes, Snowden risks coming off as having a problem with America itself. And regardless of the merits of any such animus – disliking, and being perceived as trying to harm, America is not a great way to win over Americans.

And we are talking about harm now.

The leak of PRISM can be subjected to a legitimate cost-benefits analysis of whether the greater good outweighs the harm of making the program public. But leaking the details of our spying on the Russians or the Chinese, it’s difficult to find a reasonable justification for leaking those documents. And I’m sorry, but “we shouldn’t be spying on anyone” doesn’t strike me as a legitimate argument. As for the “harm,” it’s always beneficial to know the intelligence successes, and especially the methods by which that success came about, of your foes.

SNIP

[kentuck]

80. Is this a direct quote from Snowden?

Or a quote from the Chinese newspaper? I will withhold judgement for the moment.

[pnwmom]

96. It's a quote from the newspaper he trusted to tell his story. n/t

[caseymoz]

81. And he gained access in just three months?

How well is this program really run and how secure is the data when one guy can infiltrate and find key information in just several months?

Sorry, this makes the NSA and the Obama administration look worse, not better.

[CakeGrrl]

83. And was talking to Greenwald a month BEFORE he took the Booz Allen job.

Let's see where that leads.

[Earth_First]

89. That's a leap...

I don't recall any statement where Snowden claimed he took the job "to engage in espionage" rather, "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden said, according to the article. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

I fail to see espionage anywhere in that statement...

[pnwmom]

92. Step 1: Gain access to lists of machines all over the world that the NSA hacked

Step 2: Download them and take them home.

Step 3: Share them with the others. This has already happened, which is why he's been charged with espionage.

[caseymoz]

93. No, that's not what he said!!!

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden said, according to the article. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

His saying that he knew the job granted him access to lists of machines all of over the world doesn't say he wanted it so he could give secrets away. Maybe he wanted access because he was very curious? because it was exciting? because it felt powerful?

I could tell your idea of justice here is a kangaroo court. No, justice is bringing down the outlaw NSA and the corrupt system that supports it. For that eventuality, Snowden will likely be considered a hero.

But you're so used to black being white that you call for injustice in obedience to a system of growing oppression.

I don't really have confidence in discussion somebody who can twist words as badly as you have.

[pnwmom]

94. No, it was more than mere curiosity. Here's what else he said:

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/exclusive-snowden-sought-booz-allen-job-gather-evidence-nsa?login=1

Asked if he specifically went to Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence of surveillance, he replied: “Correct on Booz.”

His intention was to collect information about the NSA hacking into “the whole world” and “not specifically Hong Kong and China”.

The documents he divulged to the Post were obtained during his tenure at Booz Allen Hamilton in April, he said.

He also signalled his intention to leak more of those documents at a later date.

“If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published.”

SNIP

[caseymoz]

97. Point taken, but a leaker is not a spy.

Though you left your main evidence out of your OP for some odd reason.

Spies may investigate, but gathering evidence, such as of a crime, not what spies do.

And the surveillance was unconstitutional and was illegal in most countries of the world. He's not obligated to protect any of that.

Here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/23/1218102/-US-NSA-Accused-of-Criminal-Privacy-Violations-in-Dozens-of-Nations-Snowden-Blowback

Since almost the entire world is pissed at us over this, point out who was he spying for? Almost every nation are going to be grateful to Snowden and realize they owe him a debt for exposing this. Not just the Chinese, the North Koreans or the Russians, the Europeans are thankful that he did this. Maybe Snowden doesn't trust it yet, but if he can go for six months, there's no way another country is going to hand him over to us. The US will be isolated about that.

We weren't spying on our enemies or our threats, we were spying on our friend's citizens. We violated sovereignty on a massive scale.

We should have never, ever let the NSA and CIA live on after the Cold War. We shouldn't have let Bush become a candidate, much less let him near the White House.

I'm afraid this is a worldwide crisis. This issue is not going to go away, neither domestically nor internationally. This is going to continue to fester. And it's going to turn into an economic albatross.

And history is not going to be kind to President Obama because of this.

[Cha]

95. And, his mentor Glenn Greenwald has egg dripping all over his face..

Flashback: When Andrew Sullivan suggested Snowden might have taken the Booz Allen job specifically to leak secrets, Glenn Greenwald called it a “moronic conspiracy theory.”

Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

Completely figures that Andrew Sullivan is channeling this moronic conspiracy theory - HE WORKED AT NSA SINCE 2009!!! http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/10/enter-the-media-martyr

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42178_Edward_Snowden_Took_NSA_Job_Specifically_to_Steal_Secret_Documents

Who's the Moron now?