He's also a legitimate whistleblower, for his disclosures to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003 (which the government concedes went through proper channe

He's also a legitimate whistleblower, for his disclosures to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003 (which the government concedes went through proper channels). Moreover, he shows not one whit of repentance for his crime. I haven't looked into Sterling's own statements about the matter; but I would imagine that it had to do with his assessment that the operation he was exposing was so reckless (not just in execution; but in the very conception of the idea of attempting to spoof the Iranians with flawed weapon design plans that they can easily cross-reference with other sources) that he felt the general public had a right to know about it, which trumped the proscriptions of the various statutes which he is alleged to have violated. You don't have to agree with with this stance. But arguably the public does benefit greatly from having this information become generally known.