so, until the truths were convenient? And btw, the question is not if we support his decision to leak things, but whether he deserves to die in jail (or worse) or not.
You're right that there is a certain paradox in what I wrote.
"If he has leaked something of value to America and the world then he should not be punished. But if he has leaked nothing of value then there was no need for it to be secret, and he should not be punished!"
I dunno. At the very least it would be nice to have the evidence out in full before jumping to conclusions.
I'm kind of divided on this. On the one hand, it's obviously horrible to think that someone who leaked only information about something as serious as war crimes, and only after exhausting all legal avenues, would go to jail.
On the other hand, if we adopt a policy of exonerating people whose causes were found to be just, the number of people leaking things that really shouldn't have been leaked is pretty likely to increase. And we're talking about information that would possibly put lives at risk in the wrong hands.
I really don't know what the right answer is. But I know it's not cut and dry.
But, do they need to prove that he leaked it? Surely the backdoor and exfiltrating the data alone would be enough to put him away from a long time, even if he never shared it with anyone.
Most people don't think his revelations warranted his treason. 7 years later, hardly any policy change has been implemented as a result of his leaks. Ideals aside,americans made a choice between freedom and security. He'll be tried for espionage no matter what. Impossible to grant him clemency without taking on the risk of similar leaks like his.
If you don't get proof that someone died, you have to charge him with something other than contributing to someone's death.
The other side can also do thought experiments bounded by "common sense." It's common sense that anyone who was an informant knew that their cover was blown and they got out of harms way ASAP. It's common sense that during the time before the release, when the US Gov was calling up foreign governments to let them know a bad leak was on the way, they also called up their informants.
It's also worth noting that only an extremely small percentage of the content contained identifiable information. Most of it wasn't related to informants at all.
Your claim that the odds are high that some are or will be killed from the leaks would be questionable at the time of release, and now that we have a few years of history, fails even a preponderance of evidence standard of proof. For such a serious claim, I personally feel that it warrants at least that.
This would be a terrible move for the US as it sets the example that leaking classified information is okay. Whether you believe what he did was right or wrong, he needs to face the consequences of his actions.
Probably not. Society is more complex than that, especially when you mix perverse actions with seemingly honest intentions. If you reveal 10 military secrets that put lives at risk but then have 1 piece of whistleblower evidence to protect yourself that's a shortcut to getting all your secrets revealed. There is no society in which revealing state secrets would be tolerated without being quickly destroyed by their enemies. And it's certainly showing one dosent care about the lives recklessly put at risk either, so is this really about helping people or is it just a blaze of ego?
Personally I'm more or less ambivalent whether he walks free or not today, what matters is deterrence is established.
While I do think he and others are guilty of leaking government secrets, it was done with the public interest in mind - exposing war crimes, for which I still hope the US will be held responsible for. Therefore any punishment should be mitigated.
Second, I do not trust he would be given a fair treatment or due process in the US - I mean he helped leak documents that prove that the US committed war crimes, a country that commits war crimes does not have any kind of moral credit left when it comes to legal cases like this.
I see your reasoning, but the "wider America" of which you speak - or at least a large portion of it - would still be calling for him to be tossed in prison (or worse) for being a "traitor" after he turned himself in. IOW I don't think it would help him much in the court of public opinion.
Further, the distinction between indiscriminately leaking and selective/targeted leaking is a real one but I don't think it will result in him being spared in any sense. I can't blame him for wanting to prolong media exposure instead of being locked up awaiting trial for "espionage" while the story quickly disappears from the headlines and from the national and global consciousness.
I think he should have kept quiet about leaking the documents. It may be that he never would have been caught and could have kept his freedom. I'm unsure if this would have helped his cause though. Perhaps by coming forward it served to bring further attention to it.
The problem with your argument is that he did not leak it afterward. None of this info was ever public. He demonstrated it to the media and then deleted it. I suggest you look into the case.
I'm sure he does realize it already, as does the DoJ and NSA. It doesn't matter to them. If you leak Top Secret material it better be something as damning as the assassination of a politician or anything along those lines, else you won't be shown any mercy by the government.
It's really just a matter of "50 years, or life without parole" at this point.
You seem to imply that, because there were dramatic consequences from the release, then he was guilty from the release. Again, it seems that the problematic leak (uncensored names) comes from a 3rd party, so your implication is like a sophism.
I suppose that with the wikileaks precedent, he would assume they would have thrown him in solitary confinement, with no access to the press, which would defeat the purpose of his leaking the info.
reply