Probably not, and here’s why I say that.
No matter the value you place on the two things that he undeniably has done – violate the various rules for the handling of classified information and in so doing expose the vast array of things being done by the United States in the domain of surveillance – the offense that he exposed is far greater than that which he committed. Because of that dis-proportionality I believe that his actions aren’t treasonous.
That dis-proportionality is based on a belief that, despite a circular and shadowy legal justification, the things that were exposed (and the statutes, judgments, and precedents that enabled them) are intrinsically hurtful to the United States. They are damaging to the Constitution simply by their existence, because they violate en bloc the right to due-process, compose unreasonable searches against persons and their affairs, and are part of a growing and increasingly powerful quasi-governmental counter-culture that believes itself to be inviolate in its interpretation of the law and which actively seeks secrecy, authority, and autonomy through methods that are antithetical to the basic tenants of the Constitution under the guise of security and the cover of fear.
Thus, I find it impossible to accuse someone of betraying their country simply because they have revealed behavior that should never have been permitted in the first place.