In Module Five we looked at instances of persons who disseminated/leaked/published classified information for what they considered to be righteous reasons. A recent 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.

Post 1: 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?