Much more nuanced than a binary hero/traitor choice, but of the two, I definitely come down on the "hero" side.

The affair has convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I will live to see the day when criticism of the United States Federal Government not legally permitted. It is too late to change things. The Cold War is over, and as it turned out, the Communists won.

A Hero guilty of violations of the Espionage Act.

Certainly not a Traitor, as that has pretty specific definitions.

Hero and Traitor are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The government has done a fantastic job of making people who do things they don't like into criminals.

Hero and Traitor are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The government has done a fantastic job of making people who do things they don't like into criminals.

There may be specific definitions for traitorous acts to qualify for criminal prosecution, but the guy betrayed the trust he undoubtedly agreed to hold when he took the job and got the clearance. That qualifies him as a traitor as the word is commonly understood to mean.

...

Blowing the whistle in the US because of the perceived loss of freedom and heading to China and Russia for relief? What the **** is wrong with Snowden? He's an idiot.

I ask because I've always thought the common understanding of the word "traitor" involved betraying your country to its enemies, which strikes me as fundamentally different than violating the terms of your security clearance to inform the people of your own country about government wrong-doing.

I agree that going to China, Russia, etc. was stupid and wrong. That said, if instead of fleeing he had simply turned himself in for prosecution after blowing the whistle, would you still consider his actions traitorous, Taskiss? In other words, is it the post hoc involvement of Russia & China that suggests "traitor" to you, or is the fact that he leaked classified info to the press sufficient in and of itself? I ask because I've always thought the common understanding of the word "traitor" involved betraying your country to its enemies, which strikes me as fundamentally different than violating the terms of your security clearance to inform the people of your own country about government wrong-doing.

A betrayer of some trust or confidence is a traitor.

Fair enough, but to whom did he owe a duty of trust and confidence - the government or the people? When debating whether someone is a traitor to their country, the distinction is important. If the government is doing something illegal/unconstitutional, there's a very strong case to be made that not blowing the whistle to the public would be the real betrayal. By way of analogy, I'm a lawyer with duties of trust and confidentiality to both my firm and its clients. If I discover that my firm is cheating a client, my ethical obligation is to inform the client, not cover for the firm. Shouldn't the same be true for government employees - i.e. that their duty is to inform the public when the government does something illegal?

A betrayer of some trust or confidence is a traitor. Running away from the consequences of your acts makes you a coward. Tugging on Superman's cape makes you an idiot.

To some degree, Snowden is all of these. Now we can go round and round about to what degree he falls in these categories, but I don't think there's any question that he does fall in these categories.