>>> Tonight, Edward Snowden's first interview on American television.
>> Former NSA director has said you have done significant and
irreversible damage to the nation.
>> The man who stall NSA secrets talks about what drove him to do it.
>> Sometimes to do the right thing you have to break a rule.
>> And how he ended up in exile in Russia.
>> People are going to find it hard to believe that President
Putin hasn't taken a run at you or what you know.
>> Tonight, the man who insists he is a trained spy.
>> I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.
>> And is wanted for espionage while insisting he's a patriot.
>> You hear often in the United States why doesn't he come home
and face the music?
>> From NBC News, "Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden."
>>> Good evening. I'm Brian Williams.
He is routinely called the most wanted man in the world.
Last week in Moscow, cloaked in secrecy and after months of
behind-the-scenes back and forth,
we sat down with Edward Snowden
for his first American television interview.
Let's begin with a reminder of what this 30-year-old has done
and why he's living in exile overseas, wanted for espionage in this country.
The classified documents he stole, downloaded from the NSA
and handed over to journalists blew the lid off data mining programs
that had been launched in the wake of and in the name of 9/11.
They have names like Prism and Boundless Informant and XkeyScore.
Some of them designed to vacuum up phone and internet data are
from companies like Verizon and Google and Apple and Yahoo!
And some of them if directed, could zero in on any one of us.
Snowden came to this interview clearly armed with talking points,
ready to tell his story.
He knew he would be receiving no compensation and no question was off limits.
Already just today based on pre-released snippets of what
you're about to see Secretary of State John Kerry launched
a full-on frontal assault on Snowden calling him a traitor,
challenging hill to come home to face justice.
And in just a moment, we'll hear what Edward Snowden has to say about that.
He arrived alone carrying only a backpack into our Moscow hotel.
He avoided the lobby, came up a back stairway into the elevator.
And the moment he sat down and our camera focused in on him,
it became clear that this was the first good long look at him the world had had.
We saw him framed against that hotel window in Hong Kong
and appearing on closed circuit video from undisclosed locations.
But he was here now, introducing himself as Ed.
A lot of people say you have badly damaged your country.
>> I'd say: Can you show that? Is there any demonstration?
Because I have been asking the United States
the press has been asking the United States government for a year now.
If after a year they can't show a single individual who has been
harmed in any way by this reporting, is it really so grave?
Is it really so serious?
Can we really trust those claims without scrutinizing them?
I would argue we can't.
But we should be open to it.
It's fair, the possibility.
If this has caused serious harm, I personally would like to know about it.
>> Former NSA director Keith Alexander has said:
You have done, quote, significant and irreversible damage to the nation.
He said there is, quote, concrete proof that terrorist
groups and others are taking action and making changes and
it's going to make our job tougher.
And this amounts to telling our enemy our playbook.
>> So what's interesting is that we see the exact same language,
the exact same accusations being leveled against whistle blowers,
being labeled against any critic of any government program
throughout history, throughout time.
>> What are you doing in Russia?
>> All right. So this is a really fair concern.
I personally am surprised that I ended up here.
The reality is I never intended to end up in Russia.
I had a flight to Cuba onwards to Latin America.
And I was stopped because the United States government
decided to revoked my passport to trap me in the Moscow airport.
So when people ask: Why are you in Russia?,
I say please ask the State Department.
>> The U.S. State department says Snowden's passport was
pulled before he boarded that flight to Moscow
and yet he was somehow still able to leave Hong Kong,
a city he had chosen to fly to initially upon leaving the U.S.
>> A formerly high ranking American official said to me:
If Snowden's equivalent Russian kid was in our hands in the United States,
we would be working mightily to, A, befriend him
and, absent that, infiltrate what he has, what he knows.
What has your relationship been to the host nation?
Have you met Putin?
Have you spoken with Putin?
>> Right, so I have no relationship with the Russian government at all.
I have never met the Russian President.
I'm not supported by the Russian government.
I'm not taking money from the Russian government.
I'm not a spy. Which is the real question.
The best way to make sure that, for example, the Russians can't
break my fingers and compromise information or hit me with a bag
of money until I give them something was not to have it at all.
And the way to do that was by destroying material that I was holding
before I transited through Russia.
>> People are going to find it hard to believe that President Putin
hasn't taken a run at you or what you know.
You can state declaratively that that hasn't happened?
>> Yeah. I mean, the way --
the way to think about this is, again,
I already know how to deal with counterintelligence.
Beyond that, I took nothing to Russia, so I could give them nothing.
>> You say you're not carrying around any of the materials.
You are handing them off.
If I gave you a laptop,
could you access the documents?
>> No, no.
>> No, you couldn't remotely, electronically access material?
>> No.
>> It's gone from your control?
>> Right. I don't have any control
-- let's put it this way.
If I’m traveling through Russia -- and I know I’m traveling through Russia
and they have a very aggressive, very professional service.
And I look like Tweety Bird to Sylvester the Cat,
if I look like a little walking chicken lag with all the documents
if I have control over that, that's a very dangerous thing for me.
>> We'll take our first break here,
And up next when we continue, the impact of 9/11 on Edward Snowden.
>> In 2004 I joined the U.S. Army.
I was injured very early on in the program and washed out.
>>> Going back almost a year to when this story first broke,
Edward Snowden was defined early on, and not altogether accurately.
The President famously called him a hacker.
We in the News media passed along and repeated terms like
systems analyst and outside contractor that didn't really
mean all that much and according to Snowden
didn't really describe what he did for a living.
>> How do you define yourself?
Are you -- were you trained as a spy?
Specifically I’m talking about this --
the title Systems Analyst, Contractor.
It seems to me spies probably look a lot more like Ed Snowden
and a lot less like James Bond these days.
>> Well, it's no secret that the U.S. tends to get more
and better intelligence out of computers nowadays than they do out of people.
I was trained as a spy in sort of the traditional sense of the word.
In that I lived and worked undercover, overseas pretending to work
in a job that I’m not and even being assigned a name that was not mine.
Now the government might deny these things, they might frame it
in certain ways and say, oh, he's a low level analyst,
but what they are trying to do is they are trying to use one position that
I have had in a career here or there to distract from the
totality of my experience which is that I have worked for the
Central Intelligence Agency undercover overseas.
I have worked for the National Security Agency undercover overseas.
And I have worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency
as a lecturer at the joint Counterintelligence Training Academy
where I developed sources and methods for keeping our information and people secure
in the most hostile and dangerous environments around the world.
So when they say I’m a low level systems administrator,
that I don't know what I’m talking about it's somewhat misleading.
>> Snowden said his life changed back when he was still a teenager
on the worst day in modern American history.
>> What did 9/11 mean to you?
>> I have never told anybody this.
No journalist.
But I was on Fort Meade on September 11th
I was right outside the NSA.
So I remember --
I remember the tension on that day.
I remember hearing on the radio, the plane hitting
and I remember thinking my grandfather
who worked for the FBI at the time
was in the Pentagon when the plane hit it.
I take the threat of terrorism seriously.
And I think we all do.
I think it's really disingenuous for the government to invoke
and sort of scandalize our memories,
to sort of exploit
the national trauma
that we all suffered together
and worked so hard to come through
to justify programs
that are have never been shown to keep us safe
but cost us liberties and freedoms
that we don't need to give up,
and our Constitution says we should not give up.
>> Then there is this way of looking at it
-- our nation had been attacked in this --
nonlinear way.
We were hurting.
Post Pearl Harbor hurting.
Why not cast the widest net possible?
Innocent people around the country were -- all felt the same way.
I've got nothing to hide.
We've got to find this enemy we can't see.
>> The definition of a Security State is any nation
that prioritizes his security over all other considerations.
I don't believe the United States is or ever should be a Security State.
If we want to be free
we can't become subject to surveillance.
We can't give away our privacy.
We can't give away our rights.
We have to be an active party.
We have to be an active part of our government.
And we have to say
there are some things worth dying for.
I think the country is one of them.
>> Like a lot of young men in our country,
and especially given the fact that
your grandfather was at the FBI, your dad's a vet.
Like a lot of young men across America you wanted to join up, and you did.
>> In 2004, I joined the U.S. Army under the 18 X-ray Special Forces recruit program.
Now ...
I have to give high respect to everyone in the military
and especially the graduates of those programs.
Because they are better men than I.
I was injured very early on in the program and I washed out.
I readily admit it. I don't hide that.
>> Snowden reportedly left the military
after breaking both of his legs in training.
>> The fact is that I tried.
You know, I saw what was going on in the world.
I believed the government's arguments
that we were going to do good things in Iraq,
that we were going to free the oppressed.
And I wanted to do my part
to help share the national burden
and create not just a better America but a better world.
The problem was,
as time went on,
as I rise,
rose to higher and higher levels of the intelligence community,
I gained more and more access,
as I saw more classified information at the highest levels,
I realized that so many of the things
that we are told by the government simply aren't true.
Much like the arguments about aluminum tubes
and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
Colin Powell’s speech with the veil of anthrax
That Saddam was going to bring against us.
The Iraq war
that I signed up for
was launched on false premises.
The American people were misled.
Now whether that was due to bad faith
or simply mistakes of intelligence,
I can't say for sure.
But I can say it shows the problem of putting too much faith
in intelligence systems without debating them in public.
>> We'll take another break here.
Coming up, how Edward Snowden says the NSA can reach
into our lives via our phones.
>> As soon as you turn it on it can be theirs.
They can turn it into a microphone they can take pictures from it
>>> Welcome back.
In the name of 9/11,
the government was now able, if they wanted to,
to use our computers to reach into American lives and American homes,
unbeknowns to the citizen of this country.
Over time, Edward Snowden says
he started thinking it was a perversion of the war on terrorism.
Whatever you think of him,
what Edward Snowden told us about spying on our data
and our personal devices was chilling.
And as an example, we used the phone in my hand.
>> I want to ask you about this device.
This is not my IPhone.
This is what drug dealers resort to.
This is called a burner.
It's a temporary.
It's the one I brought to cover the Olympics.
Because our I.T. people told me
that the Russians are so good at infiltration.
How good?
And how good are the Americans?
What can the NSA do with this device, if they wanted to get into my life?
>> So, first off, that's probably the most expensive burner I have ever seen.
But I guess we are at the up market -- >> I’m using a term of art.
>> Up market drug dealers here.
>> This is turned off. >> The NSA --
>> It's inert.
>> Right. The NSA,
the Russian intelligence service,
the chinese intelligence service,
any intelligence service in the world
that has significant funding,
and a real technological research team,
can own that phone
the minute it connects to their network.
As soon as you turn it on, it can be theirs.
They can turn it into a microphone.
They can take pictures from it, they can take the data off of it.
But it's important to understand that
these things are typically done on a targeted basis.
Right? It's only done when people go,
this phone is suspicious.
I think it's being held by a drug dealer.
I think it is being used by a terrorist.
>> Can anyone turn it on remotely if it's off?
Can they turn on apps?
Did anyone know or care that I googled
the final score of the Rangers/Canadiens game last night
because I was traveling here?
>> I would say yes to all of those.
They can absolutely turn them on with the power turned off the device.
That's pretty scary.
But the thing about the Rangers game is also scary.
You might say,
does anybody really care
that I’m looking up the score for the Rangers game?
Well, a government
or a hacker or some other nefarious individual
would say yes.
They're very interested in that.
That tells a lot about you.
First off, it tell that you probably speak english.
It says you are probably an American.
You are interested in this sport.
They might know what your habits are.
Where were you in the world when you checked the score?
Do you check it when you travel?
or do you check it when you're just at home?
They'd be able to tell something called: "Your Pattern of Life".
When are you doing these kind of activities?
When do you wake up?
When do you go to sleep?
What other phones are around you when you wake up of go to sleep?
Are you with someone who's not your wife?
Are you doing something,
are you some place you shouldn't be,
according to the government which is arbitrary, you know.
Are you engaged in any kind of activities we disapprove of,
even if they aren't technically illegal?
All of these things can raise your level of scrutiny.
Even if it seem entirely innocent to you.
Even if you have nothing to hide.
Even if you doing nothing wrong.
These activities can be miscontruded, misinterpreted
and used to harm use and individual
Even without the government having any intend to do you wrong.
The problem is the capabilities themselves
are unregulated, un uncontrolled and dangerous.
>> All because I googled Rangers/Canadiens final score.
>> Exactly.
>> Snowden says he was astonished back then,
at the access he had at his fingertips,
most notably including a computer program that,
as he put it, could get inside your thought process.
>> When I think about an instance that
really just struck me as,
Oh, my God, we can do this.
And that we can do it to anyone,
was that people at NSA, analysts,
can actually watch people's internet communications.
Watch them draft correspondence and actually
watch their thoughts form as they type.
As you write a message, you know,
an analyst at NSA or any service out there
that is using this kind of attack against people
can actually see
you write sentences and backspace over your mistakes, change the words, and then,
kind of pause, and think about what you wanted to say
and then change it.
It's this extraordinary intrusion
not just into your communications,
your finished messages
but your actual drafting process, into the way you think.
>> You must have been aware spying is sometimes called a dirty business.
Lives have been taken and unsavory deeds have been committed.
>> You know,
I don't think anybody who --
who's been in the intelligence community for almost a decade as I have been,
is really shocked
by the specific types of general operations
when they are justified.
What's more shocking for anybody
is not the dirtiness of the business.
It's the dirtiness of the targeting.
It's the dirtiness of the way these things are being used.
It's the lack of respect for the public because --
the lack of respect for the intrusiveness of surveillance.
>> When the President and others have made the point
that you should have gone through channels,
become a whistle-blower
and not pursued the route you did,
what's your response?
>> I actually did go through channels.
And that is documented.
The NSA has records.
They have copies of E-mails right now
to their office of General Counsel,
to their oversight and compliance folks, from me
raising concerns
about the NSA's interpretations of its legal authorities.
I have raised the complaints not just officially
in writing through e-mail
to these offices and these individuals
but to my supervisors, to my colleagues,
in more than one office.
I did it in ft. Meade. I did it in Hawaii.
And many, many of these individuals were shocked by these programs.
They had never seen them themselves.
And the ones who had went, you know, you're right.
These are things that are are really concerning.
These aren't things we should be doing.
Maybe we're going too far here. But --
if you say something about this, they're going to destroy you.
Do you know what happens to people who stand up and talk about this?
>> What did you report? What was the response?
>> So I reported that there were real problems
with the way the NSA was interpreting its legal authorities.
And the response more or less in bureaucratic language was
you should stop asking questions.
And these are recent records, this isn't ancient history.
One of my final official acts in government was continuing
one of these communications with a legal office.
And in fact, I am so sure that these communications exist
that I have called on congress to write a letter to the NSA to verify that they do.
Write to the office of General Counsel and say,
did mr. Snowden ever communicate any concerns
about the NSA's interpretation of its legal authorities?
>> Now about that last point there about the paper trail that
Snowden says exists within the NSA, so far
NBC News has learned from multiple sources that Snowden did, indeed,
send at least one e-mail to the General Counsel's office
raising policy and legal questions.
We have filed a request under the freedom of information act
to look for any other records.
And when we continue here tonight, to question:
Are the secrets of the U.S. Military safe?
>> I'm a human being.
I could make mistakes. I could make the wrong call.
>>> And welcome back.
As we enter our second half hour,
as we continue to hear from Edward Snowden,
part of a wide-ranging conversation taped a week ago in Moscow.
We have already heard some extraordinary things, but as you'll see,
he's not done yet
>> I’m doing this to serve my country.
I'm still working for the government.
Being a patriot means knowing when to protect your country.
If I could go anywhere in the world, that place would be home.
>> Edward Snowden's last posting was in Hawaii.
There he rented a house where he lived with his girlfriend
and performed electronic surveillance for the NSA.
It was said he took his last position to gain access to the
final documents he wanted to steal and then leak.
>> How long prior to leaving Hawaii
did you start to say to yourself,
I’m going to gather this, I’m going to put this away,
I’m going to expose this?
>> I think given the ongoing investigation
that something better not to get into in a news interview,
but I would be happy to discuss this with the government.
>> What is the number?
What's the closest you have come to estimating the number of documents?
>> I will say the 1.7 million documents figure that the intelligence community
has been bandying about,
the director of NSA himself
Keith Alexander said just a week ago in the Australian Financial Times --
Australian Financial Review, I believe,
that they have no idea
what documents were taken at all.
Their auditing was so poor,
so negligent that any private contractor,
not even an employee of the government
could walk into the NSA building,
take whatever they wanted,
and walk out with it and they would never know.
Now, I think that's a problem.
And I think that's something that needs to be resolved.
People need to be held to account for.
Has it happened before?
Could it happen again?
>> What didn't you grab?
Was there a threshold?
>> Right. I didn't want to take information
that would basically be taken and thrown out in the press
that would cause harm to individuals,
that would cause people to die, that would put lives at risk.
So a good gauge
of what information was provided to the journalists
is a representation of what you see in the press.
Now the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency
and some of these other organizations have claimed
that lives are at risk,
that all this military information was out there,
that, you know, I took all this information about missiles and
warheads and tanks,
but we don't see any of that in the Newspaper.
We haven't seen any stories on that.
>> Snowden turned over the secret documents
to Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer turned journalist,
and Laura Poitras, a documentary film maker
both of whom traveled to Russia for our interview.
In his recently published book "No Place to Hide,"
Greenwald described that moment he first met Snowden in Hong Kong.
>> What did you make of him?
>> The initial impression was one of extreme confusion.
Because I was expecting to meet someone in his 60s or 70s, someone very senior
in the Agency because I knew almost nothing about him prior to our arrival in Hong Kong.
>> It was a --
a really intimidating moment.
You know, it was --
it was the most real point of no return.
Because the minute you start talking to a journalist
as an intelligence officer
on camera,
there is really no going back from that.
That's where it all comes together.
>> Also, you had this tangible evidence.
In effect he was saying to you
if I wasn't legit, where else would I have gotten this?
>> Right. I mean, that was certainly a good start
to establishing his credibility
and his authenticity was the fact he was able to produce
many thousands of documents
from the most secretive Agency of the world's most powerful government.
But at the same time there were questions about
the authenticity of those documents, the provenance,
the motives that led to his taking them
and what it was that he would say when he identified himself to the world as the source.
>> By handing over the documents to journalists,
Snowden said he wanted to put some space
between himself and what he himself
stole are from government computers.
He wanted others to break the stories and do the reporting and
check to see which stories might cause undue harm.
>> And that's the reason that the journalists have been
required by their agreement with me as the source,
although they could obviously break that or do whatever they want,
but I demanded that they agreed to consult with the government
to make sure no individuals or specific harms could be caused by any of that reporting.
>> That includes NBC News
which has reported on its own batch of Snowden documents
and has a reporting relationship with Glenn Greenwald.
>> When it comes to specific stories about
the specific collection programs, about specific targets,
these aren't decided by me.
These are decided by Newspapers.
>> You see the part of this and for a lay audience looking on,
they know that this came from you.
The bulk release to the journalists came from you.
They are guessing that you had decisions to make within what you had access to,
so then they hear you saying, I didn't put that out, the journalists did.
>> Right. Now. That's a fair question.
Anyone can second guess my judgment.
Again, I’m a human being.
I could make mistakes. I could make the wrong call.
But the reality is the situation determined that this needed to be told to the public.
>> To your knowledge, there is nothing in what you have handed over to the journalists
materially damaging or threatening to the military or national security?
>> There is nothing that would be published that would harm the public interest.
These are programs that need to be understood,
that need to be known,
that require deep background and context for research.
They are difficult to report.
But they are of critical public importance.
>> Just for clarification here note that Snowden didn't deny turning over military secrets.
He asserted instead they wouldn't be published.
Another break.
When we continue, how Snowden justifies what he did.
>> There have been are times throughout American history
where what is right is not the same as what is legal.
Sometimes to do the right thing you have to break the law.
>>> On the range between ticker tape parade and life sentence,
what do you think ought to happen to you
if and when you return to the United States?
>> These are things that no individual should empower themselves to really decide.
You know, I’m going to give myself a parade.
But neither am I going to walk into a jail cell
to serve as a bad example
for other people in government
who see something happening,
some violation of the constitution
who think they need to say something about it.
>> You hear often in the United States are why doesn't he come home and face the music?
>> It's a fair question. You know.
Why doesn't he --
Why doesn't he face charges?
But it's also uninformed.
Because what has been lain against me aren't normal charges.
They are extraordinary charges.
We have seen more charges under the Espionage Act
in the last administration than we have in all other administrations in American history.
The Espionage Act provides anyone accused of it
of no chance to make a public defense.
You are not allowed to argue
based on all the evidence in your favor because that evidence may be classified,
even if the it is exculpatory.
And so when people say why don't you go home and face the music, I say
you have to understand that the music is not an open court and a fair trial.
>> What would you do if you had an audience with the President right now?
What would you say?
>> I would leave advising the President to his advisers.
That's --
I wouldn't presume to place myself
on the level to be able to suggest what his course of action should be.
>> Would you ask him if you could come home free and clear?
>> I think that's a decision he'll weigh
and decide based on what he believes would serve the public interest.
I think that's proper and appropriate.
>> In your mind though,
are you blameless?
Have you done, as you look at this, just a good thing?
Have you performed, as you see it, a public service?
>> I think it can be both.
I think the most important idea
is to remember that there have been times throughout American history
where what is right is not the same as what is legal.
Sometimes to do the right thing you have to break a law.
And the key there is in terms of civil disobedience.
You have to make sure that what you are risking,
what you are bringing onto yourself
doesn't serve as a detriment to anybody else,
it doesn't hurt anybody else.
If you are volunteering yourself
to be used as a negative example,
If you are volunteering to spend a lifetime in prison
rather than to spend a time in prison --
a short period where you will come out,
you'll advocate, you emerge stronger
and be able to inspire other people
to resist these policies, are you doing good or you doing bad?
>> Legal sources tell NBC News that Snowden's legal team
has been in contact with the government's lawyers,
but negotiations have not yet begun.
>> Are you looking for clemency or amnesty?
Would you like to go home?
>> I don't think there has ever been any question that I would like to go home.
I mean, I have, from day one, said I'm doing this to serve my country.
I'm still working for the government.
Now whether amnesty or clemency ever becomes a possibility is not for me to say.
That's a debate for the public and the government to decide.
But if I could go anywhere in the world, that place would be home.
>> And when we continue, an American in Russia.
Edward Snowden talks about what his life is like now in exile
and how he feels about coming home.
>> I think it's important to remember that people don't
set their lives on fire and burn down everything they love for no reason.
>>> This is a big cultural change.
You, in effect, moved to Russia from Hawaii.
What is your life like?
>> You know, it's -- it is a major cultural gap.
And it requires adjustment. But
even though I didn't choose to be here, even though, you know,
circumstances really trapped me here, ah,
I can adapt.
I can live life as an American more or less.
That's the beauty of the internet.
Is that we are no longer tied to our communities
merely by, you know, physical connections.
Right now I’m watching a show, "The Wire." --
I'm really enjoying it. Second season, not so great, but --
>> What do you make of the fact
that President Putin's standing in the world, let's say,
has changed so dramatically during the time you have been here?
>> It is -- It's really frustrating for someone
who is working so hard
to expand the domain of our rights and our privacy
to end up stuck in a place
where those rights are being challenged
in ways that I would consider deeply unfair.
The recent bloggers' registration law in Russia,
I can't think of any basis for a law like that.
Not just in Russia, but any country.
The government shouldn't be regulating the operations of a free press
whether it is NBC or whether it's some blogger in their living room.
There is so much that needs to be defended here in Russia,
but I am limited by my inability to speak Russian and so on an so forth
that it's an isolating and frustrating thing.
I really hope that Russia,
the United States and many other countries
will work to push back against this
constantly increasing surveillance,
against this constant erosion and abrasion of public rights.
>> Correct me if I’m wrong. The arc of your life is
you went from signing up for the military after 9/11,
in effect saying you were willing to die for your country
to then telling people you half expected
to die via abduction or assassination after
what you have done in this instance.
That's a pretty dramatic arc since 2003, 2004.
>> I think that's actually a
a solid representation of the
dramatic arcs that have happened within our government in the same period.
Do you think our government has changed since September 11?
Have the policies changed? Has the manner of our government changed?
Has civil engagement with the government changed?
Have our politics changed?
Are things radically different in terms of partisanship?
There have been radical changes within our government.
>> Do you see yourself as a patriot?
>> I do.
You know, I think patriot is a word that's --
that's thrown around so much that it can be devalued nowadays.
But being a patriot doesn't mean prioritizing service to government above all else.
Being a patriot means knowing when to protect your country,
knowing when to protect your constitution,
knowing when to protect your countrymen
from the violations of -- and encroachments
of adversaries and those adversaries don't have to be foreign countries.
They can be bad policies.
They can be officials who, you know, need a little bit more accountability.
They can be mistakes of government and simple overreach
and things that should never have been tried or that went wrong.
>> Did you say earlier you were still serving your government?
>> Yes.
>> How so?
>> When you look at the actions that I have taken,
when you look at the carefulness of the programs that have been disclosed,
when you look at the way this has all been filtered
through the most trusted journalistic institutions in America.
When you look at the way the government has had a chance to chime in on this
and to make their case,
and when you look at the changes that it's resulted in,
we have had the first Open Federal Court
to ever review these programs declare it likely unconstitutional and Orwellian
and you see congress agreeing that massive surveillance,
bulk collection needs to end.
With all of these things happening
that the government agrees all the way up to the President, again,
make us stronger
how can it be said that I did not serve my government?
How can it be said that this harmed the country
when all three branches of government have made reforms as a result of it?
>> Many in government say Snowden should pay for what he has done
whether or not he comes home.
>> What do you miss about home?
>> I think the only --
the only answer to something like that for somebody in my situation is,
you know, what don't I miss?
What would you miss?
What wouldn't you miss?
I miss my family.
I miss my home.
I miss my colleagues.
I miss the work.
Because caught up in all these issues,
people have unfairly demonized the NSA to a point that's too extreme.
These are good people trying to do hard work for good reasons.
The problem that we are confronted with,
the challenge that we are facing
is not the working level guy, you know,
some mustache-twirling villain who's out to destroy your life.
It's the fact that senior officials
are investing themselves with powers
that they are not entitled to,
and they are doing it without asking the public for any kind of consent.
>> Is what I heard you feeling bad
for the damage to the NSA
as a result of what you have exposed from the NSA?
>> Well, what you need to understand in what I was saying --
I guess not what you need to understand, but
what I'm saying is not damage to the NSA.
It's the sort of conspiratorial thinking
that can emerge sometimes when we see the government has committed
real and serious abuses
that lead us to think they can do no good
and the government does have legitimate programs and legitimate purposes and they can do great things.
The NSA can as well.
I think it's important to remember
that people don't set their lives on fire.
They don't say good-bye to their families,
actually pack up without saying good-bye to their families.
They don't walk away from their extraordinary comfortable lives.
I made a lot of money for a guy with no high school diploma.
And burn down everything they love for no reason.
>> So you're a kid from North Carolina and while I,
after this interview, am free to fly back to the United States,
you can't. Does that hurt you?
>> I think nobody could, no American could be prohibited from coming home
or traveling anywhere else without feeling a sense of loss.
But, again, I may have lost my ability to travel,
but I have gained the ability to go to sleep at night, put my head on the pillow
and feel comfortable that I have done the right thing
even when it was the hard thing.
I'm comfortable with that.
>> A good number of Americans, of course,
feel that because of what they see as an act of treason,
they sleep less soundly at night
fearing this massive leak of secrets has endangered the country.
There is more on the way.
Glenn Greenwald says the next story he is going to publish
based on the Snowden documents
may be the biggest yet in terms of impact.
That is our broadcast for tonight.
We want to let you know we're going to keep going in the studio
to ask the question, in part to take on this same question
is Snowden a hero or a traitor?
We have assembled correspondents and former government officials
to analyze what he just had to say
and play some material from Snowden that we have not yet aired.
It will happen on our website NBCNews.com.
Please join us there. Join the conversation.
It will start now and run for the next hour.
And long after tonight's broadcast
it will remain posted on the web as a companion to what we have just seen tonight.
For the rest of you, your late local News begins now.
For all of us at NBC News, good night from New York.