If you want to get into a discussion about the nature of modern warfare and how the idea of treasonous activity beyond open war is a fallacy, that's another thread entirely. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter, even if you want to be butthurt about semantics. What he did is against the law, it's been against the law for going on a century now, and it will continue to be against the law for centuries to come. This isn't a conversation about the legality of the NSA's domestic operations. This is a conversation about the legality of the NSA's international operations, and it's not even a real conversation since you aren't arguing against it. They weren't doing anything wrong, yet he compromised the integrity of a number intelligence operations, not because they were illegal or immoral (since they're neither), but for the sole reason of getting attention.
And even if you're right and it's not treason, you've still admitted that it fits the definition of Aid and Comfort, which has nothing to do with the definition of "at war" in its relation to treason.
So in case you're confused on the difference between whistleblowing and treason/aiding and comforting:
A whistleblower, who either reports domestic misconduct or reports on wartime activities only after the fact, so as not to compromise ongoing operations: Deep Throat
, Pentagon Papers
People offering aid to foreign nations, be it scientific, military, or economic: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
, John Anthony Walker
, Anna Chapman
and the Illegals Program
, Edward Snowden