Does his harming of another mean that he can't be harmed and he can't speak truth to try and save people who would be harmed in the future?
Do you have the same thoughts about confidential informants, police that go under cover or individuals that turn State's Evidence? Committing a crime == "they're liars and never speak truth"?
These are not technicalities: he has done incalculable damage to the national security of the U.S. While there is no real way to prove it one way or another, it is entirely likely that his disclosures have resulted in the suffering or even deaths of others. There is only one way to be sufficiently certain that he does not cause further damage, and that is to keep him in isolation. If it is justifiable to keep an extremely violent criminal in isolation to prevent possible future harm to others, is it not equally justifiable to keep a nonviolent criminal in isolation in order to prevent possible future harm to even greater numbers of people?
EDIT:
Downvote if you like, but the question remains a valid philosophical question: if it is ethical to keep a person in isolation to preempt the possibility of physical harm to others, does the mechanism by which the harm is perpetrated matter?
"Derailing him to jail time or prison would be a net loss for humanity, however objectively and legally inconsistent it may be."
The number one criterion for a functioning democracy is a reliable and consistent application of the law to everybody without exception. Declaring that somebody should be above the law is a very dangerous path.
If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
If our justice system does not represent some bid for moral rightness (as flawed as it may be) then what is the point of justice at all? The leakers crimes is in these two cases were mostly pointing out others much weightier violations of the law. Those others have received no punishment, no cost for their crimes. Also, putting the word “merely” before ‘exiled indefinitely from your home’ is personally baffling to me. Especially since one of these people does not live in the US and “in practice” both their lives either were or still are in jeopardy.
Edit: I do think I understand your overall point though. Actually leaking information should be a very serious decision, and should not be taken lightly.
It should come as no surprise that someone who doesn't value others, someone who value power over others, would relish in the idea that an other is being incarcerated because of their actions and all it takes is their silence.
The descriptive argument in this case is irrelevant. Okay, he broke the law. Nobody here disputes that.
So what?
The entire point I was trying to make was that I don't think the average HN reader, whatever their level of dedication to rule of law (some more, some less), wants to see a guy tortured because he broke a law, less so when the law is being abused by a corrupt system in furtherance of its corruption.
Not making this argument basically means that you're outsourcing your moral compass to a third party, a third party who often makes tenuous and outright backwards connections between moral principles and laws.
All judgements aside, the normative argument is the only thing there's any kind of discussion or disagreement on. Making the descriptive one apropos of nothing carries the connotation that you value the rule of law above all else.
I voted you up for whatever that's worth, but I wish you'd expand on what you mean. Oftentimes it seems you and I misunderstand each other.
So he wasn't directing anybody to commit a crime? It's a deplorable scenario, but free exchange of ideas and beliefs still requires protection. The consequences of losing it are in the long-term far greater than personal grief.
Sure, and ostensibly the United States has some sort of don't legislate morality doctrine. Just because I think he deserves to be punished doesn't mean our legal system will punish him.
I'm certainly not above public shaming especially when the guy has very publicly and unequivocally explained what he's doing.
I assume that the goal is not so much sending him to jail for a week before he dies of natural causes as to obtaining any valuable historical information that he could hide still. The only way to force him to talk can be a trial.
Probably also about disclosing and linking other people with the same crimes.
“All I can say right now is the U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,” he said. “Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.”
I am aware of the connotation that you sited. But my point is that he is being tried in the media, and perception matters. So, no, I don't think it's OK to label him as a traitor.
But when I take a look at the general conduct of the US government both internal and external, and the insane chaos it is creating around the globe, it doesn't feel morally wrong to sabotage the US government in every conceivable way.
The US government tortures and executes people without trial. (even its own citizens in some cases) The president signs a kill list every week. And then there's various terrorist organizations that are seemingly run out of Washington. This is beyond anything I could have imagined 20 years ago. Not even in my wildest dreams. (or nightmares)
I hope you're right. I hope we never have to find out.
In his shoes, given that we already know the US govt had a plan to poison and/or kidnap him, I would not trust that I'd receive a fair trial in the USA.
There is a difference between his case, leaking state secrets, and jailing journos for a disagreement. I don't agree with how he's been handled but there is zero moral equivalence.
Its sad, and telling, that the majority of people in this country still believe that he's a traitor, should be punished, and that the govt is right and should be allowed to abuse power.
People actually believe that someone revealing information about crimes is more guilty than the criminals. Hypocricy at its finest.
Does his harming of another mean that he can't be harmed and he can't speak truth to try and save people who would be harmed in the future?
Do you have the same thoughts about confidential informants, police that go under cover or individuals that turn State's Evidence? Committing a crime == "they're liars and never speak truth"?
reply