In the realm of classified information leaks, it is important to differentiate between three distinct categories: accidental negligent leaks, deliberate acts of espionage by true traitors, and whistleblowers. As a civil libertarian, understanding these distinctions is crucial to maintain national security and civil liberties.
Accidental negligent leaks occur when individuals inadvertently expose classified information without any malicious intent. While such leaks can potentially harm national security, the lack of intent to cause damage should be considered when determining the appropriate punishment. An example of this type of leak is the recent case of Jack Teixeira, a young Air National Guardsman accused of leaking classified documents. Teixeira's actions are more in line with reckless behavior rather than a deliberate attempt to expose government wrongdoing or engage in espionage.
In contrast, true traitors are individuals who deliberately sell classified information to foreign governments or other entities, putting national security at risk for personal gain. These traitors should be dealt with harshly and without mercy, as their actions directly threaten the nation's well-being.
Whistleblowers, however, are more nuanced. They are individuals who reveal classified information to expose high crimes against the Constitution and the American people. When whistleblowers, such as Bradly, now Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, uncover these crimes, they should be regarded as heroes. Those who have perpetrated these crimes against the nation should be treated as domestic traitors and held accountable for their acts of treason.
It is important to recognize that the reluctance of some within the political class to accept the nobility of whistleblowers like Snowden may stem from a fear that their own complicity in perpetrating crimes will be exposed.
A just legal system should differentiate between these types of leaks, taking into account the motivations behind each individual's actions and weighing the public interest against potential harm to national security. By doing so, we can foster an environment that encourages accountability and transparency while still protecting the critical information necessary for the well-being of our nation.
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
I also wanted to congratulate you on your first blog post. It would also be a good idea to introduce yourself to the greater hive community by posting an introductory post under the #introduceyourself tag. You might be able to get some more followers like that.
You might also want to check out some of the communities like the information war community.
Thank you for the suggestion, I will go and do that as soon as I get a chance..
Posted via D.Buzz
I have a controversial take but...I actually have a low opinion of both Manning and Snowden and wonder if they didn't do more harm than good. I can, however, understand some of their motivations for doing so. I just think their motives (more so for Manning than Snowden) were more egotistical and selfish than altruistic.
Interesting. I guess in the end, the information that we learned, especially from Snowden, is so alarming that I could care less about him and wonder why there's not absolute and complete outrage. What he disclosed should have led to people hanging in the public square.
Posted via D.Buzz