One argument: the info that was released exposed harmful things and as a result might prevent further harm.
Other Argument: The person who released the info could also be releasing a dangerous can of worms, that might cause harm.
My argument when i fully consider it, is that both can point the finger at each other, however only one side can make the other pay and only one side is righteous enough to call for execution, imprisonment etc.
Since when did two equal arguments get the favour of one side? Answer - when that one side is in power and has the power to prosecute/execute.
If one side won't mitigate the harm that they cause to others thousands of times over, then why should one man mitigate exposing that...just once?
This whole raw deal comes from the process being a dictated one, coming from overbearing powerful men and that is the end crime against humanity that needs to be arrested. In this way, after all tolls are taken, i support Julian way more than the other side who i think are terribly dangerous by the way they wish to handle this like the villainous war-mongers - punish the prisoner rather than treat them well. This is real life and they were outsmarted and now they want this man dead. It reminds me of Salmon Rushdie and the free-world totally supported him back then, but now the shoe is on the other foot and the hypocrisies of this cover-up (not the exposure of it) will infest the worlds politics like millions of maggots writhing over a rotten issue. Ultimately, the ones who have been exposed need to learn from it, not kill the potential information martyr of the free world.
