Slashdot Mirror
Ex-NSA Official Indicted For Leaks To Newspaper
Hugh Pickens writes "The Baltimore Sun reports that in a rare legal action against a government employee accused of leaking secrets, a grand jury has indicted Thomas A. Drake, a former senior National Security Agency official, on charges of providing classified information to a newspaper reporter in hundreds of e-mail messages in 2006 and 2007. Federal law prohibits government employees from disclosing classified information which could be 'expected to cause damage to national security.' The indictment (PDF) does not name either the reporter or the newspaper that received the information, but the description applies to articles written by Siobhan Gorman, then a reporter for The Baltimore Sun, that examined in detail the failings of several major NSA programs, costing billions of dollars, that were plagued with technical flaws and cost overruns. Gorman's stories did not focus on the substance of the electronic intelligence information the agency gathers and analyzes but exposed management and programmatic troubles within the agency."
Adds reader metrometro: "Of note: the government says the alleged NSA mole uses Hushmail, which is all the endorsement I need for a security system." Perhaps Mr. Drake was unaware of Hushmail's past cooperation with the US government?
Your point 1 requires evidence. What unreasonable searches and seizures do you refer to? Your point 2 is clearly false. There are committees in both the House and Senate whose job is to oversee the intelligence agencies. Note that this ... person ... did not report to those committees, even anonymously or under the whistleblower protections, but leaked to the media instead.
Your point 3 is covered by Article I Section 8. If you want to make a case that all budgets must be entirely disclosed at some given level of detail, I'd love to hear it.
Also, this is all entirely a red herring. Are you disputing the government's authority to operate clandestine intelligence agencies? If so, I'd love to hear the argument for that, too.
Look, I'm not a fan of large, intrusive governments. I'm especially not a fan of permanent intelligence agencies with sweeping powers (though this applies less to the NSA than to the CIA and other organizations with "direct action" capabilities). But the solution for that is not turning a blind eye while people spill our secrets in wartime. If you don't trust the government to keep secrets, fine, push for laws or amendments that remove that power from them. I'd likely even support you.
As far as this being treason, if indeed the guy disclosed intelligence programs, then he has committed it because he gave aid to the enemy (the overt act of making public information about our operations that enables the enemy to avoid detection). If he admits it, or if his acts are attested to by two witnesses, then he can be convicted for it. (In this case, I'm betting it's the lack of direct witnesses that would prevent a treason charge from sticking.)
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
By Wikipedia's own admission, anyone can edit an article at any time, therefore the information in the article can not be trusted at any point in time.
At the time Tennet was Director of the CIA, the intelligence budge was considered classified information. The release of classified information is at the discretion of the federal government. There is a federal budget, the analysis of which is published by no fewer than four different agencies. Maybe you should try researching the federal budget and the budget process.
In other words, your quote actually argues against your point because Drake was breaking the law. The information Drake released did not show any illegal acts, merely failed projects the nature and existence of which were classified. Drake violated the law and was indicted by a grand jury. Your quote does not help your cause in the least.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Please explain how a law stating one may not release classified information is unjust.
This is a false statement, as the intelligence budget is no longer considered classified.
As anyone can change Wikipedia at any time, the information contained in Wikipedia is not fact checked, nor is the veracity of the sources verified.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The information he provided was not to cover up injustice, therefore your argument fails.
In other words, Wikipedia is an untrusted source. Why should I do that when I can find a trusted and trustable source?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.