The only group that benefits are those who want to know the truth, and that is dangerous cause the truth will make the liars look bad? I mean, no offense but that sounds like something a sociopath would say.
I wouldn't say the truth itself is dangerous, but it is dangerous to the organizations involved. Those who benefit from the truth such as you or I do not have the ability to uncover it, and the institutions that could have the ability to do so don't benefit from doing so. There's no impartial oversight group outside of regular citizens, who unfortunately lack the ability to hold their institutions to account for a variety of reasons. The (potential) truth is dangerous to the parties involved, so they have an incentive not to investigate or ignore the possibility. They might even give some not completely self serving explanations/rationalizations if asked, such as keeping the peace or not causing a panic.
If for example there was a leak, and it was purely the fault of one country, I would imagine there would be vigorous finger pointing.
> If for example there was a leak, and it was purely the fault of one country, I would imagine there would be vigorous finger pointing.
I imagine by the same account, if a person is murdered, it was purely the fault of one murderer, that there would be vigorous finger pointing.
However, if they don't come forward and citizens, media, and prosecutors have to determine who killed someone; not only should they be required to pay significantly more if they have assets, but the punishment should be harsher because they deliberately withheld the truth causing their victims families more suffering.
