I have to say, this is the aspect that almost shocks me the most. The leaker himself doesn't seem like the most sympathetic character, and it might be very well be that he was some rightwing gun nut who shares this for entirely questionable motives.
And yes, I'd also condemn publishing detailed military positions or names of sources.
Nevertheless, I think it's unsettling how quickly media, politicians and the public are to treat any kind of leaking as a grave crime. From what I understood, the documents contained evidence of illegal activity by us agencies - spying on allies, and possibly misleading the public about casualty numbers (that seems questionable though). Yet everyone is condemning the leaker for exposing this stuff instead if demanding an investigation.
Looks like the US press really learned their lessons from the Snowdon leaks - and it weren't the ones he intended.
You can see it in the naming conventions as well - he is called "leaker" now, not "whistleblower" - or, if any media has to, it's "self-described whistleblower".
And yes, I'd also condemn publishing detailed military positions or names of sources.
Nevertheless, I think it's unsettling how quickly media, politicians and the public are to treat any kind of leaking as a grave crime. From what I understood, the documents contained evidence of illegal activity by us agencies - spying on allies, and possibly misleading the public about casualty numbers (that seems questionable though). Yet everyone is condemning the leaker for exposing this stuff instead if demanding an investigation.
Looks like the US press really learned their lessons from the Snowdon leaks - and it weren't the ones he intended.
You can see it in the naming conventions as well - he is called "leaker" now, not "whistleblower" - or, if any media has to, it's "self-described whistleblower".