>I object to the new definition of “leaking” that tries to make all cases of it unquestionably good.

I don't think this has ever been the case. There's still large contingents of the US that think the Snowden leaks were part of a Russian operation, that the Manning leaks were bad and so on. I wasn't alive during Vietnam, but were those leaks considered unquestionably good?

What does the word “all” mean?

Those examples seem to be addressing a statement that no one made. Is that in an effort to make people think a different statement was made, one that’s trivial to disprove rather than addressing the actual statement?

I have no idea, you're the one who used it.

Yeah that’s obvious because the comment replied as if I said “no leaks are good” which is a highly illogical and contrived reading of me saying I object to how the article is acting like “all” leaks are good.

I don't know if Snowden was a Russian operation, I don't think the facts are there for that. However, I do think Snowden committed treason by doing what he did, and so did this National Guardsman. It doesn't matter the reason or morale justification, breaking the law is still breaking the law. If you're going to call for the prosecution of Trump you can't in the next sentence say yeah but Snowden broke the law for the right reason so it's ok. That sort of hair-splitting is disingenuous.

What you're advocating for is blind obedience to authority.

People decide they break the law for the right reasons all the time. Do you not speed while driving?

No, because in here speeding tickets are based on a percentage of my income.

I can't afford to speed =)