If I give secret information to Bob, and Bob gives it to the enemy, that could land me on the hook for giving it to the enemy. Bob may not be at fault, either, since I'm the one that signed the secret clearance agreement with the government, not him.
I think this is all besides the point, though. Unless I'm missing something big, Snowden's crimes are all conditions of his having a security clearance.
When I was much younger, I used to think that I was so awesome that people would have to bend to my social needs if they wanted my awesomeness. They would come looking for me for employment, for relationships, for anything.
Needless to say, that was foolish of me. Other people are humans just like me, with their own strengths and weaknesses just like me.
Maybe this was on my mind because of the "RMS FAQ" also on the front page. Enough people want to deal with RMS that he is able to give checklists of what he does and doesn't need. And even he still has trouble making ends meet with speaking engagements, since the $10 check-clearing fee needs to be covered.
Yeah, I've found ESR's old "how to ask smart questions" is very wrong. The more details you provide, the less likely you are to find an answer. (It's more accurately titled "how I wish people would have asked the question because I would have less work to do but it doesn't actually get their question answered, which is of course less work.)
It seems that every detail gives people another reason not to answer. If I say I'm trying to search for a word somewhere in a directory of files on OpenBSD, people who only know Linux will think that "well, grep must not work the same way on OpenBSD" and not respond.
Partially this is because of prior experience with assholes. If someone says "well, on Linux you use grep -lr" then an asshole will shout back at them "HE WAS ASKING ABOUT OPENBSD NOT LINUX YOU MORON LEARN TO READ."
(Spoiler: the answer is the same on both Linux and OpenBSD.)
This will be a huge stretch of the law. It would be doubtful that one could succeed against her even under UK-type laws, to say nothing of American law.
Truth is a defense. Did they not do what she reported them as saying?
(NB: I'm not saying I approve of her behavior, but trying to paint her as legally responsible is out there.)
I think this is all besides the point, though. Unless I'm missing something big, Snowden's crimes are all conditions of his having a security clearance.