Since you won't answer the question based on the specific example you provided. Can you provide any example where (legal) classified data was released, that benefited the public.
A leak that shows reveals government corruption can be beneficial, but even then, the sensitive information should not be openly shared with the public. The classified should be shared with a minimum amount of people as needed. Is there a case where somebody is being held without being found guilty? None I know of.
An argument can be made for Snowdon shedding light on the over extension of government surveillance on the general public as being very positive. We must not forget a government is elected by the people, for the people and they need to be accountable. Corruption can and does place rifts in this fine balance and in these cases, "whistle blowing" may be the only option for someone who is in jeopardy. If the system is sufficiently corrupted that an open and transparent platform is non existent for people to voice concerns, then "leaking' may be the only option. Bi-partisan fighting and 'control' of government can also lead to this type of environment. The fact that this individual had to "leak" information is a clear indication that the system is insufficient for full transparency and accountability, which should raise flags with voters. Equally important in this case is the content of the leaked material, which should be very troubling to the American populous, now and in future elections.
Problem is, whistle blowing can be done, without completely compromising national security also, or compromise the lives of US personnel. For your second point, "This individual had to Leak information". No she didn't. Not only did she potentially compromise national security, she compromised ongoing investigations into the exact subject the report was about. Perhaps once all the investigations completed if they came out with results that were contrary to the report, then there might be reason to whistle blow, but even then it needs to be done with caution and respect for the countries and citizens security.
As someone who in another life had a TS clearance and the primary part of job was to control and protect classified material it wasn't up to me or anyone else who holds one to decide what should and shouldn't stay classified. It's well established and know what the rules are, you can't pick and choose what you follow or who has to follow them. So thinking anyone is some type of hero or patriot for running to the news is ridiculous, no matter what the info is they're in the wrong and deserve punishment because there needs to be consistency in the enforcement of the rules. None of these leaks are exactly earth shattering revelations of some deep dark secret of how the goverment is running so it's not exactly like these idiots are saving anyone. Either do your job or go through the proper channels instead of running out to the news or shut up. Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
It is always hard to determine a persons motivation, and it is hard to see things from their point of view. We are quick to condemn but all too often lack sufficient information to make an accurate conclusion.
I agree with your first paragraph. Where I may disagree would be with the second. "this individual had to "leak" - did he? I don't think I ever heard that he raised a whistle-blower concern. "content of the leaked material, which should be very troubling to the American populous" I'm not so sure about this either. People don't read EULAs, agreement or contracts to even understand my claim "you have no privacy". (Note if we want to talk privacy/expectation I'll create a separate thread)
I don't need to know her motivation, whether she just hates Trump which he own social media shows she does. Whether she was broke and trying to make money, or whether she actually thought she was doing right. Fact is there are active investigations going on into the very subjects of the report that she compromised. As I stated IF she had come out after final findings were given and she was showing a coverup or something then I might have some sympathy for her. As of now, I have NONE because her leaking was premature at best.
Yes, there are investigations going on but motivation is everything. If she felt threatened by the system then she was justified, if she just hates Trump then she is not, if she was being paid, then she is not. We need to understand her intentions, we don't know her motivation and need to give her the benefit of the doubt, that is how our legal system is designed to work. What if there is an internal coverup, do you not think the American people should know about that coverup?
by her own actions in not waiting for an official release and announcement about the investigation there is no way to show there was a coverup. The report itself shows contrary to that idea. Feeling threatened from what?
The laws, terms of employment and handling of classified data are not flexible based on intentions or motivations. They are rules. Binary in compliance. I believe the motivations come into play with non-compliance...i.e. consequences, sentencing. If she felt there was a coverup, she should've used a legal channel to raise the concern-whistle blower, discussed with employer or Govt agency legal, or whatever legal means were available. There is a reason classified info is not available via FOIA and why handling of ANY sensitive (corporate, government or military) is almost always controlled with "need to know"...
If you go thru a background check sign the agreement and work with sensitive documents then share those documents with others you are breaking the law. Your agenda or beliefs do not allow you to comprimise the agreement you signed. Here is a hint what she did was absolutely wrong, Rosie O'donnel is supporting her.
This is where we fail, left protects the left and the right protects the right. No question she broke the law and should/will suffer the consequences of her actions.
What if she was setup? I mean she is 25. Is obviously not a supporter of Trump. Her name is Reality. And she was a contractor for the NSA. What if she is a scapegoat? In her defense she was in the Air Force for over 6 years. Been awarded by the military. Never has even had a parking ticket. And she speaks 3 other languages. I have a hard time believing her actions were unintelligent or done without thinking. Imagine you're a 25 year old single girl who is ambushed by the FBI. They point a gun in your face and threaten your life unless you tell them exactly what they want to hear? What do you do? Just playing Devil's Advocate.
Beginning to believe more and more, that this was a sting operation. Seemed to all happen to quick for it.
I feel in any case when something happens, the public truly doesn't know the complete truth of what really happens, yet so many make assumptions that read/watch the news and take it as gospel. Then they have their own opinion on what they believe yet will never be able to prove, and I mean truly prove. Not display an article they pulled from some source they "believe" to be credible. A person see's an item on the TV/internet. This could be fox, cnn, msnbc, npr, pbs, daily show, etc. All those programs have their own angle and perspective on things. Who is right and who is wrong? Who is reliable? Who doesn't have an agenda? Who isn't influenced by organizations? I think these questions that can't be answered are troubling and very sad. Who do we count on for reliable/credible material? Because you support a republican outlook, therefore democrat are wrong and vice versa? It's frustrating to me of how divided our country can be.
What would be the motivation to set her up? What would be the benefit? What power does she have that needs to taken away?
