Poll: People who leak classified intelligence

[Aerows]

to those unauthorized to view it are committing criminal acts and should be prosecuted.

8 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (25%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	If a Democratic President in Office, yes
	0 (0%)
	If a Republican in Office, no
	0 (0%)
	I say one thing but demonstrate that I think another
	0 (0%)
	Allowable if it reveals criminal behavior
	6 (75%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Not enough nuance in that for me to choose 'always yes' or 'always no'.

I'm going to guess I'd say no in most instances, since it seems like far too many things are classified that don't need to be. But I'm sure there are some specific things that need to actually be classified for at least a brief period of time.

[Aerows]

2. I probably should alter that

post, but I found it funny that it all depends on which way the wind blows when top secret information gets exposed is never about the information itself - it's about the politics.

[Renew Deal]

3. Generally yes

Unless the leak is about a crime. Bad behavior and gossip is not a crime.

[Aerows]

5. Adultery is a crime

Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

under the UCMJ for very good reason, and one that *many* have been dishonorable discharged for.

Try again?

[Renew Deal]

7. Only in 21 states

And that isn't a crime worth leaking classified government information over. That's why I said generally yes. But like others said "it depends."

http://archive.freep.com/article/20140417/FEATURES01/304170139/adultery-illegal-21-states

[Aerows]

11. UCMJ is Federal

and applies to Federal employees.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. It applies to the US military, not to "federal employees".

I'm not really sure that's an appropriate term for serving members of the military.

[Aerows]

17. CIA is a Federal function

but in this case falls under the UCMJ.

[Oilwellian]

4. DU is suffering from serious myopia

There wasn't a lot of thought put into this poll.

[Aerows]

8. Well, I could say

"Edward Snowden broke the law by divulging information that specified a crime."

"Gen Patreaus broke the law by divulging information which was a crime."

I thought that was a pretty clear way to connect some dots, but yeah, I can understand why those that want to stand on two bridges because they have made up their minds which holds their weight best, but cannot move at all because they straddle both.

[Kurska]

6. Wheres the option for?

Yes, but I think we have way too much classified information and the entire system needs a reform?

[Aerows]

9. I've heard the law is the law

until it has been hammered into my skull like a rusty nail, but that doesn't change the point one bit.

You can't condone one and condemn the other.

[Kurska]

20. You can entirely think a system is needed and support a law for protecting that system

While thinking that system needs to be drastically reformed.

I don't see the contradiction. I see the need for some state secrets, while contending the state keeps far too many state secrets about things the public really ought to have a right to know.

[Aerows]

23. I absolutely believe there is a need for state secrets

But when those are abused to the point of abusing civil liberties, I detest them.

When they are also abused to let someone off of the hook that *also* broke the law, what am I supposed to think?

What do I cheer for?

[Kurska]

24. I think there are gradients of violation.

Not all secrets are created equally.

[sadoldgirl]

10. This is a misleading duality question

Thus, I don't vote; however, I was very happy that the Pentagon papers
were leaked, and equally so about the NSA information.

I would be even ecstatic if all of the TPP were leaked. There are many
things the government calls "classified", which the citizens ought
to know in order to make good decisions or at least to ask their
representatives to vote a certain way.

Let the sunshine in when appropriate, and make very strict rules
for permission to classify.

[Aerows]

12. Added an option

I swear it was there when I posted this :/

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Edward Snowden? Daniel Ellsberg?

[Aerows]

16. +1 n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. If Snowden does it and gets lionized

then I couldn't care less if Petraeus did.

[Aerows]

19. Lionized by being chased out of his own country

and having to move to Russia?

Okay. Petraeus can do the same thing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. There are many who would welcome him back as a hero.

Snowden put lives at risk by sharing secrets he had with the whole world.

Petraeus gave info to a woman he was banging.

Big difference.

[Takket]

18. wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too many grey areas

[sendero]

21. "classified"

.... people assume it means valid information that needs to be secret to protect the interests of the majority of Americans but all too often means information that would embarrass the numerous idiots in positions of power that should be working in janitorial.

[MohRokTah]

22. Snowden and Patreus are equally criminal and both belong in prison. eom

[Man from Pickens]

26. Classification of illegal acts is itself not lawful

Secrecy can't lawfully apply to the government breaking its own laws. If it does in fact, then in fact there really is no law and the basis of rule is really by force rather than law. Thus, it is no crime to reveal crimes that have been unlawfully shielded from revelation by classification.