Yediot, Artuz 2, and Arutz 10 have all had sympathetic interviews with Anat Kamm over the weekend. Anat Kamm is an Israeli who during her military service stole 2,000 classified documents and then leaked them to an Ha'aretz reporter. On 14 January 2010 Kamm was indicted for severe espionage.
The Yediot (I can't find a full transcript) story, and to some extent the Artuz 2 interview both followed the same line - Anat Kam admits she did a mistake, and that she should be punished, but insists that she didn't leak the documents out of a "left wing" agenda - but rather because she wanted the publicity and thrill of the act and of being involved with the news (Yediot) or rather she just didn't think (Arutz 2). In both Anat Kamm tries to stress that she did not act of any storng left wing ideology - but more out of an immature or thoughless act. The whole article in Yediot gave the impression that Anat Kamm really is the immature child she is claiming to be, and I left with the impression that what she really wanted was the publicity. Even as she moans about what she has done, she sounds media obsessed. In the Arutz 2 interview she jokes that at least the media photographed her on her "good side". So is it better to claim that your actions were either due to thoughtlessness or some secret wish for the thrill of publicity, or rather to claim that you acted out of ideology? I personally am angrier that someone was willing to betray the trust put in them just for the thrill of it, then if she had performed the same act out of an ideal I disagree with. Similarly I think if my sentencing was based on deterrence rather then moral outrage, I would sentence more harshly those who acted out of a wish for fame then those who acted for ideological reasons.