
There's no two ways about it[*]. Either he made the whole thing up, in which case he is a liar, or it's true, in which case he has given aid and succour to the enemies of the state, by which definition he is a traitor.
Which do you suppose it is?
Let's lock him up for 42 days and waterboard him to find out!
(Of course, I'm going too easy on him. If he is lying, it is in order to promulgate the overthrow of the democratic constitutional order in this country and its replacement by a police state. In which case he's /also/ a traitor by my book, although in legal terms that probably only makes him a "gluteus maximus".)
[*] - On further reflection, there's at least[**] one more way about it: maybe he has been given this information in some security briefing and genuinely believes it to be true, but it is not. In which case he is merely a common criminal in breach of the Official Secrets Act, which I have no doubt he must have signed at some point in his career....
[**] - On further further reflection, there's at least one /more/ way about it: maybe he has been given this information, not at any security briefing nor in any official capacity, but has merely been told it by some passing lunatic he has met in the street or down the pub, and believed every single word of it. In which case he is a gullible moron of the first water, but at least that's not a crime[***].
[***] - However, if it is the /best/ he can say about himself, he should still shrivel up and die of embarassment, and not be trusted with a position of reponsibility such as he has been[****].
[****] - And if that /is/ the case, what does it say about the people[*****] who put him there?
[*****] - I use the term "people" advisedly[******].
[******] - But "twunts" would be better[*******].
[*******] - There is no footnote #7[********].
[********] - Oh, wait a minute, there is. But there certainly won't be another one.[*********]
[*********] - Blew it again. Sorry all!