Edward Snowden secured a job with a US government contractor for one reason alone – to obtain evidence on Washington’s cyberspying networks, the South China Morning Post can reveal.



For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.



“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”

“Anybody who wants to accuse me or anyone at the Guardian of aiding and abetting Snowden has the obligation to point to any specific evidence to support that accusation,” Greenwald told me. “Otherwise they’re just spouting reckless innuendo.”

For a while now some of us have noticed that Edward Snowden took his job at Booz Allen after he contacted Glenn Greenwald to discuss leaking information about the NSA. Greenwald has always dismissed questions about this because he says Snowden worked on contract with the NSA in previous positions. That was never the point. The question has always been, why would he decide to leak and THEN take the job at Booz Allen?Today, the South China Morning Post (the Hong Kong paper Snowden has been talking to for awhile now) answered that question. If true (and we have no reason to doubt these folks based on their previous reporting), this is HUGE!First of all, this not only cooks Snowden's goose pretty completely. But we now have every reason to question Glenn Greenwald's role in all this. Did he know about or in any way influence Snowden's decision to take the job specifically for the purpose of leaking? If so, he's implicated in a criminal conspiracy. I'm not one that thinks these kinds of questions should necessarily require a court of law to be answered. Greenwald wants to claim the mantle of "journalist." Its time he came clean.: Apparently Glenn Greenwald spoke to Greg Sargent to address these questions today. I'll let you read it for yourself and will stipulate that his explanation matches up with timelines he has written about in the past.But I still have a few questions. First and foremost is that he is never quoted as making a categorical denial of knowing about Snowden's decision to take a job specifically for the purpose of gaining access to the documents they leaked. I've been watching Greenwald for too long not to be aware of how he twists words to avoid unpleasant facts.Secondly, I'm curious why Greenwald went to Sargent instead of either writing this himself or being interviewed by someone at the Guardian - where he works. Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of Sargent's work. But this is a big story. You have to wonder why Greenwald would give it away.Finally, I can't help but wonder how Greenwald would approach this if the shoe were on the other foot.And yet questioning him is reckless innuendo.Why not just demonstrate some transparency and publish the communication he had with Snowden? You KNOW that's what he would be demanding if the roles were reversed.