Tasks with Directions:

In Module Five we looked at instances of persons who

disseminated$/$leaked$/$published classified information for

what they considered to be righteous reasons. The

Washington Post article that we read discussed how

Daniel Hale was sentenced to $45$ months in prison for

releasing secret information about drone warfare, and

how the judge in his case stated the "disclosure of

documents went beyond his 'courageous and principled'

stance on drones." The article goes on to address

arguments from both sides of Hale's prosecution$/$defense

some advocating why what he did was wrong and

dangerous, and others suggesting it was justified and

good.

In your first post, draft a well$-$written, persuasive post

that argues either in favor of or against the propriety

of what Hale did as it relates to the release of the drone

documents. Support your position from information in

the article, the module, and perhaps elsewhere in the

course and outside the course $($being sure to cite

properly$).$ Feel free to suggest what the rules should be

when someone violates the law but does so because

he$/$she believes it is necessary to bring about positive

change.

In your second post provide a thoughtful, informed

response to another classmate.

Remember: Explain and support rather than

merely assert.