Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now!

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: I used to say [Edward Snowden] was a defector, you know, and there’s a history of defection. Actually, there’s a history of defection to Moscow, and that he seems to be part of that stream. I’m now kind of drifting in the direction of perhaps more harsh language.

MAJOR ELLIOTT GARRETT: Such as?

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Such as "traitor." I mean—

MAJOR ELLIOTT GARRETT: Based on what?

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, in the past two weeks, in open letters to the German and the Brazilian government, he has offered to reveal more American secrets to those governments in return for something. And in return was for asylum. I think there’s an English word that describes selling American secrets to another government, and I do think it’s treason.

[...]

GLENN GREENWALD: First of all, Michael Hayden, in that clip, as he so often does, just told outright lies. Just anyone who has any doubts should go read the letter that Edward Snowden wrote to the people of Brazil, as well as to the people of Germany, and compare it to what Michael Hayden lied and said that he actually did. He never offered to give documents in exchange for asylum or anything like that. He did the opposite. He has been repeatedly pursued by officials of both countries asking him to participate in the criminal investigations that they are conducting about spying on their citizens. And he was essentially writing a letter to say, "Unfortunately, I’m not able to help, even though I would like to help in any legal and appropriate way, because I don’t actually have permanent asylum anywhere, and the U.S. government is still trying to imprison me.

[...]

Secondly, just let me make this point about the complete ignorance of Michael Hayden. He said in that clip that Edward Snowden should now be deemed to be a traitor because he’s engaged in treason by virtue of having offered asylum in exchange for documents. Let’s assume he really did do that. Go and look at what the Constitution defines treason as being. It is very clear. It says treason is the giving of aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States—the enemies of the United States. So, even if you want to believe Michael Hayden’s lie that Edward Snowden offered information and documents in exchange for asylum to Germany and Brazil, are Germany and Brazil enemies of the United States? It’s not treason even if you believe the lies of Michael Hayden.

[...]

It is classic whistleblowing behavior. And the real question is: Why are whistleblowers in the United States either prosecuted vindictively and extremely or forced to flee the country in order to avoid being in a cage for the rest of their life?

[...]

And the final thing I want to say is, you know, all this talk about amnesty for Edward Snowden, and it’s so important that the rule of law be applied to him, it’s really quite amazing. Here’s Michael Hayden. He oversaw the illegal warrantless eavesdropping program implemented under the Bush administration. He oversaw torture and rendition as the head of the CIA. James Clapper lied to the face of Congress. These are felonies at least as bad, and I would say much worse, than anything Edward Snowden is accused of doing, and yet they’re not prosecuted. They’re free to appear on television programs. The United States government in Washington constantly gives amnesty to its highest officials, even when they commit the most egregious crimes. And yet the idea of amnesty for a whistleblower is considered radical and extreme. And that’s why a hardened felon like Michael Hayden is free to walk around on the street and is treated on American media outlets as though he’s some learned, wisdom-drenched elder statesman, rather than what he is, which is a chronic criminal.

[...]

What’s clearly underway is what we saw in the 1970’s when the scandal over and concern over abusive eavesdropping powers was at least as great as what we have now, if not greater. And the idea was that they needed a way to placate the public and just say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re putting these great safeguards on these powers so you don’t have to worry any more about abuse.’ What they really did instead was to just create these symbolic gestures that really didn’t change much of anything, that just made the program prettier and therefore more palatable. They said, ‘We’re going to create a court to oversee this,’ and yet the court was created to be a very pro-government court. It met in secret, only the government could show up, and they rubber stamped everything. They said, ‘We’re going to create oversight committees in Congress,’ and yet they installed the most slavish loyalists to the NSA like Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers as the committee chair to make sure that those committees do nothing but bolster and defend the intelligence community, rather than ever checking them or exercising oversight. That’s what the president is now trying to do with this panel of hand-picked loyalists to pretend that there’s reform going on, and yet most of those proposals – they sound nice – are actually going to achieve very little, if not make it worse, other than trying to convince the public that they need not worry. That’s the explicit goal of this reform process – to make the public more comfortable with these programs, not to meaningfully reform them.

  Democracy Now!

There is also discussion of the UK government's attempts to prosecute not only Snowden, but anyone who has helped him and anyone who has handled or reported on the documents he leaked under terrorism laws (not treason or theft, or espionage, but terrorism).  Also, the latest Der Spiegel revelations that the NSA even rerouted to themselves computers that were ordered online by targets of NSA spying and installed spyware before sending them on to the buyer.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.