Set the law aside for a moment. It says almost nothing useful here, because it forbids the disclosure regardless of what the disclosure shows. The interesting question is the one the law refuses to ask: when is publishing this kind of material the right thing to do?
Why the easy answers do not work
Two positions get offered constantly and neither survives contact with a real case.
"Never leak classified material." This makes wrongdoing unreviewable whenever it is stamped secret, which is an invitation to stamp everything secret. Over-classification is a documented and long-standing problem, so the rule collapses into whatever an official decided to mark.
"Always publish, the public has a right to know." This has no limiting principle at all. Nobody seriously thinks the identities of informants or the locations of people in hiding should be published because they are interesting.
Why both slogans collapse
- "Never leak classified material." Makes wrongdoing unreviewable whenever it is stamped secret.
- "The public has a right to know everything." Has no limiting principle at all.
A test that actually discriminates
Five questions. They are not original, and something like them underlies most serious writing on the subject.
- Does it show serious wrongdoing or a matter of real public importance? Not embarrassment. Not gossip.
- Have lawful routes been tried and failed? Not merely imagined to be pointless.
- Is identifiable harm to specific people likely, and can it be prevented?
- Is the disclosure proportionate? The narrowest material that makes the point.
- Has care been taken? Verification, redaction, thought about consequences.
Applying it to the 2010 video
| Test | The airstrike video |
|---|---|
| Serious public importance | Yes. Deaths of civilians and two journalists, never independently examined |
| Lawful routes tried | Yes. Three years of refused requests |
| Identifiable harm | Low. The people in it are already dead; no sources or methods exposed |
| Proportionate | Yes. One recording of one incident |
| Care taken | Yes. Months of verification and field research |
On this test the video release is about as defensible as a leak gets. That is not a general endorsement of the organisation; it is a judgement about one file.
Where the same test fails
Apply it to the Afghan field reports and it comes apart at questions three and five. Names of people who had cooperated with coalition forces were published. That is identifiable harm to specific individuals, and no public-interest argument reaches it.
Volume is the variable
One file can be read, understood and weighed. Hundreds of thousands cannot. Beyond a certain scale a publisher is no longer exercising judgement, because judgement requires knowing what you are publishing. This is the strongest argument the prosecution had.
Two different ethical positions
A source and a publisher are not in the same situation and should not be judged by the same standard.
A source usually cannot assess consequences well. They have access, urgency and no institutional support, and they are choosing between doing nothing and handing material to someone better placed to decide. Handing it to a publisher rather than posting it is itself a responsible choice.
A publisher has time, colleagues, lawyers and the ability to redact. More is therefore owed by them, and failures of care sit with them rather than with the person who sent the material.
The argument about consequences nobody can settle
One objection deserves a straight answer rather than a dismissal. Defenders of secrecy argue that the harms of disclosure are diffuse, delayed and invisible: a source who stops talking, an ally who shares less, a capability quietly lost. You cannot point at them, so leaks always look cheaper than they are. The same debate, applied to the whole organisation, is weighed in whether WikiLeaks did more good than harm to security.
That is a real argument and it is unfalsifiable, which is both its strength and its weakness. It can be used to oppose any disclosure at any time, and it never has to produce evidence.
The fair response is to hold both. Yes, there are costs that will never be visible in a news story. And no, an unmeasurable cost cannot outweigh a specific, documented, visible one without any attempt at showing it. In the case of this recording, the concrete side of the ledger is two dead journalists, a man killed helping a stranger, two wounded children and an inquiry that closed itself. The diffuse side has never been itemised by anyone.
Where that leaves the ethics of leaking footage
With a set of judgements rather than a rule, which is unsatisfying and probably correct. Publishing the airstrike recording was right on almost any serious reading. Publishing unredacted names was wrong on any reading. The same organisation did both within four months.
The deeper problem is that none of this analysis has any legal effect. A court trying a leak case cannot weigh a single one of the five questions above, which means the ethical reasoning that ought to determine the outcome happens entirely outside the room where the outcome is decided. Until that changes, people will keep making these calls alone, under pressure, with no framework and no protection.
The recording this argument is really about is described in the main account, and the reason no lawful route produced it in the Reuters requests.
Questions people ask about this
Is leaking classified material ever ethical?
Does the 2010 video release meet those conditions?
Why do the later releases fail the same test?
Where this comes from
- Freedom of the Press Foundation — Freedom of the Press Foundation
- The National Security Archive — George Washington University
- Amnesty International — Amnesty International
Spotted something wrong? Tell us and we will fix it.
