Greenwald has his own definition of what is harmful to Americans and our security.

And it doesn't include what is harmful to the U.S. government:

“In order to take documents with him that proved that what he was saying was true he had to take ones that included very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do,” Greenwald said in Brazil...

Greenwald told The AP... it “would allow somebody who read them to know exactly how the NSA does what it does, which would in turn allow them to evade that surveillance or replicate it.”

Despite their sensitivity, Greenwald said he didn’t think that disclosure of the documents would prove harmful to Americans or their national security.

“I think it would be harmful to the U.S. government, as they perceive their own interests, if the details of those programs were revealed,” said [Greenwald]....

Note the distinction between the American people and our government. Something that is admittedly seriously damaging to the government — as it follows its approach to national security — is not harmful to the people at all, because Greenwald and Snowden have figured out for us what is good for us. Never mind that we didn't vote for them and the government is the product of democracy.

Asked about a so-called dead man’s pact, which Greenwald has said would allow several people to access Snowden’s trove of documents were anything to happen to him, Greenwald replied that “media descriptions of it have been overly simplistic. It’s not just a matter of, if he dies, things get released, it’s more nuanced than that,” he said. “It’s really just a way to protect himself against extremely rogue behavior on the part of the United States, by which I mean violent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it’s just a way to ensure that nobody feels incentivized to do that.”

This is a classic leftist response to the accusation that they are violating the rules — the sneering observation that the accuser lacks nuance.  Oh, you simplistic common people. Let the man of intellect interpret the rules and explain the subtly textured context to you.

From Brazil.

ADDED: This post got the old "nuance" tag, which retrieves some interesting material, including this:

It's ironic that liberals are the ones who like to say they are nuanced. But it's the opposite of nuanced to be so convinced of the goodness and the smartness of your words and your very being. It's simplistic and cartoonish. And dangerous. It leaves you open to attack when you don't anticipate how your words... will appear to your opponents.

AND: