If you are rotting in a room in an embassy on made-up false accusations, everything you do to the people who put you there is a fair game. Timing the release of information is the least worrisome thing he could have done.
Why would the timing indicate him not acting ethically? He might just realize that information leaks are time sensitive, that when you release them is almost as important as what they contain.
Even if he had no choice, he certainly didn't have to leak everything without the time to go over it. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, he's leaked stuff that were completely legal, i.e. the US spying on other countries.
Was he on a tight clock prior to the press exposure of the documents? I don't actually know. If not, he could have reviewed them at his leisure, no need to tell the US Gov he was going to release the documents while he was engaged in the process of paring them down.
Dude he's not a good guy. If he was being fair, he would expose China and Russia too. But he was just leaking US secrets. They never expose China or Russia because they know what will happen in very short notice. The US is the only one of the 3 that has a true due process.
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.
At the same time, this is exactly what we should expect of every American put in his position. And others were in his position before him, so you kind of have to shake your head that this wasn't disclosed sooner.
What I find admirable is the way he's gone about disclosing these documents in such a responsible and controlled manner.
It's one thing to release the documents in a fair, unbiased method. But the release of the documents was politically timed to be as impactful as possible with hyped and staggered releases. He and wikileaks took sides and that is not something I consider ok. He had/has a vendetta.
There are 4 things he could have done:
1. Don't reveal any secrets.
2A Reveal secrets that harm candidate A.
2B Reveal secrets that harm candidate B.
3. Reveal all secrets that harm candidate A and candidate B.
I don't think anybody on HN argues that option 3 is preferable over all the other options. You seem to think option 1 is preferable to both options 2A and 2B. GP and I seem to think the opposite.
I can understand your argument that half the truth can be worse than no truth at all. But as there are very few sources for information like WikiLeaks I think in cases like this, half the truth might be all the public can get and it at least gives you a basic idea of what is happening when nobody is looking.
But he's already on record saying "The information is coming out, no matter what happens to me".
This isn't his ace-in-the-hole insurance for him as much as it is insurance that killing him can't stop the release of the information. That makes him far less valuable as a target for "extralegal field maneuvers".
By distributing the file, he's announced that the information has become a hydra - cutting off its head won't kill it. This won't stop the US from pursuing him, but it guarantees that his goals will be met regardless of his personal safety.
This should be a known fact acknowledged by everyone by now, from his leaks, but I don't think it is, and it's good to have him still being able to speak up about these things, instead of being locked up in solitary confinement without being able to respond to the governments' continuous lies.
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.
Good thing that he came forward before he miraculously 'disappears' or is otherwise arrested of some irrelevant crime. Unlike the Assange or Manning cases however, this guy uncovered an actual abuse of power, so it's hard for people not to sympathize with him and hopefully he won't be prosecuted ruthlessly. If on the other hand the US (and allies) begin a new crusade against him, it is literally a case of a government fighting its own people. Leadership needs to be accountable and that cannot happen without whistleblowers.
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.
reply