Slashdot Mirror
Thomas Drake Innocent of All Ten Original Charges
decora writes "NPR, and dozens of other media sources, are reporting that NSA IT whistleblower Thomas Andrews Drake is innocent of all 10 original charges against him; including the 5 Espionage Act charges for 'retention' of 'national defense information.' Drake stared down the government to the last minute, rejecting deal after deal, because he 'refused to plea bargain with the truth.' The judge had even recently ruled that there was no evidence that Drake passed classified information to a reporter. In the end, he has agreed that he committed a misdemeanor: 'unauthorized access to a computer.' It is unknown what this means for the other non-spy espionage cases that Obama's DOJ currently has pending (Kim, Sterling, Manning), or the Grand Jury that is currently meeting to discuss Espionage Act charges related to WikiLeaks."
FYI, since it wasn't in the summary and people will inevitably ask: the charges carry a max of one year in jail, and the prosecution agreed not to pursue any jail time at all.
I found the following article from the New Yorker to provide considerable information about what led up to the charges:
New Yorker: The Secret Sharer
But what about the impact? There's no denying our (the US) enemies are happy about it.
Dear US, not everything is about you. Kinda fighting a civil war right now.
Hugs and kisses,
Muammar Kadafi
It was enemies of the USA that wasted time and taxpayers money bringing him to trial in the first place - they just happen to be on the US payroll. They are not going to be happy and external forces are really not going to give a shit either way about a conveniently guy some lazy spooks grabbed because doing their real job requires too much hard work.
No, you aren't assumed innocent. The courts are supposed to presume innocence while in front of a jury. There is no "duty" for anyone not actively presenting to a jury while a court is in session to presume or assume innocence.
Further, assuming (or presuming) something is irrelevant to whether it's true. OJ killed Nicole. He is guilty of that act. He was found not guilty in a court of law. None of those are contradictory statements of fact (whether they are true is something that can be debated elsewhere).
If the cops presumed you innocent, they'd never arrest you. If the prosecutor presumed you innocent, they'd never file charges. If the judge presumed you innocent, he'd not let the trial proceed. The presumption of innocence is what the jury is supposed to do, and nobody else in the entire system (and certainly nobody outside the justice system) is expected to presume innocence, though they are expected to act that way under reasonable rules of the court when in front of the jury.
Learn to love Alaska
Maybe NSA did have a case, but if they wanted to make that case, they would have had to admit that the allegations were essentially true. Unacceptable option.
But even if the allegations were completely bogus, confirming that would be just as bad a leak in terms of exposing NSA's capabilities. Equally unacceptable option.
It was a classic Catch-22. (Best catch there is.) Both sides get to walk away with a win: NSA keeps its secrets to itself, and Yossarian lives. Well-played on both sides.
I saw a man upon a stair
A man in court who wasn't there
To testify for NSA.
(The winning move was not to play.)
No one is reporting he is innocent. They reached a plea deal. The government dropped the 10 charges because a judge decided the prosecution would have to show classified material to the jury. Dropping the charges because you don't have enough evidence to make a case (i.e. without using classified material) is not the same as deciding he is innocent.
If you shine a light on government waste, incompetence or malfeasance be prepared for the government to use its unlimited checkbook and unaccountable law enforcement types to make your life a living hell.
America is turning into a police state.
The authority is actually violating the laws in this case.
Instead of innocent until proven guilty, the authority is using that "traitor" bait to paint Mr. Drake as if he is guilty of treason against the United States of America.
Shame on Uncle Sam !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I edited wikipedia , to make it hopefully much more neutral. Thanks for the tip.
As for the slashdot story, I believe that Thomas Drake's innocence is not opinion. I believe that it is a fact. If you have 10 counts against you, and they are all dropped, then you are innocent of them. Several readers have pointed this follows from the 'innocent until proven guilty' meme (which i hadn't thought of, but is a good argument...) do you disagree? Just because I am biased does not mean I am factually wrong, does it?
I believe the slashdot headline compares favorably in accurate to the other mainstream news headlines that are currently crowding around cyberspace.
The other headlines on other news sites typically say something like "NSA Leak case reaches plea deal", or "NSA spy espionage case pleads out" or "Spy-Agency Leaker pleads guilty to lesser charge" or "classified leak case reaches bargain" or whatever.
Many of these statments are misleading, or flat out wrong, and most of them imply things that are factually incorrect. Thomas Drake was never, ever, not even once, charged with 'leaking'. There is no law against 'leaking'. There are several laws covering 'disclosure' or 'delivery' of information, but he was not charged with one of those laws either. Why? Because they had no good evidence that he ever delivered any classified information to anyone. He specifically took precautions against divulging classified information to anyone - that was part of his agreement with Gorman of the Baltimore Sun - that he wouldn't give her any information.
Now, the DOJ indictment of him contains a lot of statements about 'giving classified information to a reporter', but when they actually brought criminal charges, none of those charges was for 'leaking' or 'disclosure' or 'delivery' of information. A statement is a totally different thing from a charge. Thus, any headline that says he was 'charged with leaking' or 'charged with disclosure' is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst.
As for this word 'classified', it is also wrong. The Espionage Act 793(e) does not even use the word 'classified', it uses the phrase "national defense information". This is an important distinction, because only a jury can decide if a defendant's information counted as 'national defense information'. And this typically refers to serious military stuff, like diagrams of ships or something - that is what the law was refering to when Congress created it in 1917, and when Congress created its forefather the Defense Secrets Act in 1911, and what Congress intended when it amended the Espionage Act in 1950. And as Schmidt and Edgar point out in their famous 1973 Columbia Law article, Congress has repeatedly refused or failed to blanketly criminalize the posession or delivery of classified information - as Elsea points out in her 2010 CRS article, there is a 'patchwork' of laws, because Congress itself, and the President, love to leak classified information to the media. Thus, every headline that uses the word 'charged with leaking classified info' in relation to Drake's case is factually incorrect. He was never, not even once, charged with any law that contains the word 'classified' anywhere in it.
Again, the indictment makes a lot of statements about 'giving classified information to a reporter' (Which the judge ruled there was no evidence of). Even the headline of the DOJ news release might say things about 'classified information'. It is not my fault that the DOJ lawyers cannot read the Espionage Act. And again, a statement in an indcitment is a totally different thing from a criminal charge.
Lastly I'd like to cover the implications, the sort of tone and demeanor, of the language of the many articles floating around the web.
They seem to imply the story here is that a 'leaker' had to 'plead to a lesser charge'. That is utterly misleading. Another view of the story, one that I believe will be in the history books, is that the government, after a case that started when Bush demanded the FBI find the NS