So we have established that it is an unfair law, likely created to go after political opponents operating within the government. You can’t argue on one hand that the law is unjust, and then applaud that it is being applied to a high level official. I might question whether your own political ideology leads you to this conclusion. If that is the case, then you are espousing the very reason that the law is unjust to begin with.
What would be your reaction to the same indictment against President Obama? He is a much higher official who, some have argued, is also responsible for leaking classified materials. By your logic, he should also be under criminal investigation and that should receive much greater applause.
Democratic countries have no right to keep secrets, because it makes democratic process impractical. Government == Public, otherwise there’s really no point.
“Even if your leak caused no national security damage at all, you can still be charged, and you can’t argue otherwise as a defense at trial.”
We still give tickets to people who run red lights even if they don’t cause an accident. We still fine building owner who lock emergency exits even if no one dies in a horrific fire. There are whole classes of crimes that we punish for putting other people at risk. The practice of giving a person access to classified material in exchange for sexual favors is probably one that puts national security at risk even if no harm resulted from this particular case.
Yes, there would be widespread applause from my circles at least if Obama was charged under these same laws.
Do you… not understand the basic principles of justice? Barring that, do you not understand the basic principles of effective change? I mean, there are countless reasons why one would oppose a law while applauding it being applied to those in power. The law being applied to those in power is one of the few things that might actually lead to the law being removed! (People in power both HAVE power and like to KEEP their power! If they are afraid it will take that away, they might get rid of it!)
In essence:
Even if the law is bad, applying it to the powerful reinforces the idea that the system is equitable and not simply might-makes-right. This is a GOOD.
Especially if the law is bad, applying it to powerful is most likely to lead to change in the law. This is a GOOD.
Everyone loves to see people hoisted by their own petard, and there is immense satisfaction in seeing people fall prey to the things they previously supported and used to prey on others. This is PETTY, but also good for team morale.
The only better way for this to go while keeping the law is making sure it ONLY applied to the powerful.
