Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't this treason? Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason? Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...
He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. The prosecution can present their evidence.
That's the problem with justice in full -- it's not just the law, and it's not just the majority opinion.
The first can mostly determine compliance (with its code), the second can mostly determine popularity or prevelance of a sentiment.
And they can do that only given all the facts (which they wont, e.g. how this information was used, special service people can just lie like they did to congress etc), and without undue influence from outside.
For something like Snowden's case (or the slavery example), who controls the media and public discourse is quite an important factor on any jury, that's in effect even before they got selected.
All that, of course, if anybody believes that there's a thing such as justice in general, and that while some things can be relative, something like slavery being bad is wrong whether the majority of people in an era thinks its ok or not.