http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/edward-snowden-leader

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024642573

Snowden thought reporting it meant asking colleagues what they would think if it was on the front page.

That's a bit odd and doesn't necessarily constitute reporting IMO.

Another curious thing is that he recently said he "reported" it over 10 times before going rogue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4624823

Well if that's true, why didn't he say this last year? Why is he suddenly saying this now?

A real head scratcher IMO.

It's hard to know what exactly happened.

eom

Not only would it bolster his argument, it could really help to reform the whistle blowing process and thats a good thing.

His recent statements don't really help to clarify much IMO. He's seems a bit confused and immature.

Hopefully he can clarify.

His motives simply don't matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024642462
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024642573

I'd guess "How would it look on the front page if I went to China and gave them a list of NSA taergets there?" wasn't one of his questions

I think the NSA needs to be reined in and the system reformed. However, I think the Snowden/Greenwald/Assange are suspect and are not acting out of simple altruism or concern for all people. They are no less unsavory than the people they purport to be checking. Not a fan of the blow it all up and it doesn't matter who the pieces fall on approach to reform.

... As legal counsel to Snowden as well as the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) would like to make its position clear ... By communicating with the press, Snowden used the safest channel available to him to inform the public of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, government officials have been critical of him for not using internal agency channels – the same channels that have repeatedly failed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal in the past, as these same officials know well ...
GAP Statement on Edward Snowden and NSA Domestic Surveillance
by Government Accountability Project on January 03, 2014

So that's fun: Snowden somehow fails to remember, until nine months after he fled the US for China and Russia, that he tried to go through channels ten times; two months ago, Snowden's legal counsel was explaining to us why he didn't even try to go through channels; and now the NSA confirms what Snowden's legal counsel says

... "didn't even try to go through channels"?

What you posted above has no mention of that.

His counsel says that he used the safest channel available TO INFORM THE PUBLIC. That doesn't mean that he didn't raise issues internally in ways that would not inform the public. And Snowden has consistently said that he didn't go up the chain of command at NSA or go to Congress or anything like that for fear of legal retaliation.

... because he eventually went to the press he did not try official channels first suggest a lack of understanding of logic.

To state that "Jack bought a steak at a meat market" does not equate to "Jack didn't go to other stores first."

But I don't think Snowden is claiming that he went through "official channels." He continues to claim that he did not use the "recommended process" (his phrase in his recent testimony) because as an employee of a private company, he would not have the legal protections necessary to make that safe. What he has added in his recent testimony is that he raised the issue with a variety of officials.