Well, I believe that's based on a hypothetical of how a judge might rule if Snowden attempts that defense.
But more importantly, I don't think that's wrong. "I had a good reason" isn't a defense against the charges since intent is not a factor in this crime. I don't think you're generally allowed to argue for jury nullification, which is what this would amount to. (If the government could prove he intended to cause harm I imagine there would be even more charges against him.) And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal.
I assume if there was a sentencing hearing, he'd be allowed to make a case for leniency based on why he did it.
"And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal."
I want that situation. I want that situation very badly.
People are generally predisposed to think that the stuff they're working on is a good thing. If, despite that, someone decides it's so appalling it needs to be stopped, I want them to speak up. Even if they're occasionally wrong.
But more importantly, I don't think that's wrong. "I had a good reason" isn't a defense against the charges since intent is not a factor in this crime. I don't think you're generally allowed to argue for jury nullification, which is what this would amount to. (If the government could prove he intended to cause harm I imagine there would be even more charges against him.) And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal.
I assume if there was a sentencing hearing, he'd be allowed to make a case for leniency based on why he did it.