I'm inclined to see this through a "loose lips sink ships" lens. Yes, if there weern't British troops there, they couldn't be killed. Yes, if troops are killed by the Taleban, it's the Taleban's fault for killing them. But neither of those are things affected by whether or not Drudge publishes that report. The British government has decided that it is in the national interest to have troops there. The Taleban are going to try to kill NATO troops in Afghanistan no matter what.
But by identifying a High Value Target in their area of operations, Drudge is giving the Taleban information they didn't have about ways in which they can do damage to the UK that they didn't know they had.
Is there a strong compelling reason for Drudge (or the Australian paper--equally culpable, just incompetent) to publish this information? No, just the prurient pleasure of the public. If they were exposing misconduct, or something criminal, there would be a case; not here.
So to me, if the Taleban were to take action *based on* the information obtained by Drudge (and the Australians), then Drudge (and the Ozzies) are liable, at least in part, for what happens.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-02-29 07:11 pm (UTC)But by identifying a High Value Target in their area of operations, Drudge is giving the Taleban information they didn't have about ways in which they can do damage to the UK that they didn't know they had.
Is there a strong compelling reason for Drudge (or the Australian paper--equally culpable, just incompetent) to publish this information? No, just the prurient pleasure of the public. If they were exposing misconduct, or something criminal, there would be a case; not here.
So to me, if the Taleban were to take action *based on* the information obtained by Drudge (and the Australians), then Drudge (and the Ozzies) are liable, at least in part, for what happens.