Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blasts Prosecution of Alleged NSA Leaker
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Judge Richard D. Bennett harshly criticized US prosecutor William M. Welch III for his treatment of a former spy agency official Thomas Drake, who was accused of leaking classified material. Bennett called the delays in the now-closed case 'unconscionable' and compared it to British tyranny in the colonial era. In 2007, FBI agents raided Drake's house, but it took over two years for officials to indict him. 'And then, over a year later, on the eve of trial, in June of 2011, the government says, "Whoops, we dropped the whole case,"' Bennett said. Drake was given a mild penalty for pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charge of exceeding authorized use of a computer: a year's probation and 240 hours of community service while all 10 felony counts were dropped. 'That's four years of hell that a citizen goes through,' Bennett said. 'It was not proper. It doesn't pass the smell test.' In contrast with his tough words for Welch, Bennett singled out for praise Drake's public defenders, James Wyda and Deborah L. Boardman, saying their work on behalf of Drake was 'at the highest level of professionalism.' Judge Welch said the matter was now closed and addressed Drake: 'I wish you the best of luck in the rest of your life.'"
So... he basically gave him a slap on the wrist. Yeah, that'll teach him.
If judges could pass summary judgment for civil damages in a case like this?
Or, better, when someone's released from a 20 year stint in prison after the DNA proves they didn't do it?
sig not found
We has internets and can read that if we care too. Thread crap elsewhere.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I'm surprised that they didn't plant some kiddy porn on the guys computer, just to make sure that he went down and was persecuted for the rest of his life !
I wish you the best of luck in the rest of your life...
... as it will probably be brief.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
the charge against him was 5 counts of 'retaining information related to the national defense', Espionage Act 18 USC 793(e)
thats because there is no crime called 'leaking', never has been and probably never will be. it doesnt even have a set definition.
and its not illegal to give out classified material , only certain types of classified material in certain situations to certain people.
and Thomas Drake didnt give out any classified material - the judge even said basically this (the emails the DOJ said had classified material, well, they didnt).
Drake was actually an expert in handling classified material, he was an intelligence analyst for many years in the military and NSA. He specifically avoided giving out any classified info to the reporter.
thats one of the scariest things about the case. they decided a bunch of stuff they seized from him was 'classified', after they sezied it. and then they also even argued that material marked UNCLASSIFIED in big bold letters was really classified.
yes 'accused' is perhaps correct, in a technical sense, since the government's indictment said he did it. but when it came to actual criminal charges, there werent any, because there arent any laws about "leaking classified material".
because the biggest leakers? Congress and the President, going back all the way to Eisenhower, at least, and then even back farther, you can even find some of the founding fathers 'leaking' sensitive info. and none of them got 35 years in prison for it. (which is what the government wanted to do to Drake)
I sold a small company to a F500 firm and they later sued and we spent 5 years bickering while they attempted to run me out of business.
Eventually I found them stealing the equipment I make from our customers and suddenly they dropped the case.
That didn't get me back the $650,000 I spent on lawyers.
Just the way it is.
the project he 'blew the whistle' on was Trailblazer, which spent a billion dollars and produced uhm, just about zero actual product.
and if you count up the thousands of Thomas Drakes in the government, well, if they had all been listened to for the past 10+ years, we could have saved a trillion dollars.
forgot to mention that!!!! oops
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. Only a very small percentage of the corruption is ever completely revealed.
Will he direct another prosecutor to bring charges? If not, he's guilty as well, assuming the law doesn't preclude it.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
in the colonial era.'
Yes, much of the government's behavior of late is very reminiscent of British Tyranny in the colonial era. I seem to recall there was a very sharp, distinct response to it from Americans then. I wonder what the response will be now?
Sic semper tyrannis...
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
It is extremely unlikely that they will be disbarred. The best outcome would be some form of censure, which could have an effect on their carer. Even so, having to go through the process of defending themselves from professional criticism will be some payback for "four years of hell that a citizen goes through", to quote the ruling. I doubt that the bar will do anything at all. Sadly, complaining to the bar is likely the only payback the victim will get.
Why is Snark Required?
A ludicrous government brought you 4 years of hell and dragged your name through the mud in ways that will probably never completely wash off.
But don't worry--a judge who didn't actually do anything got REALLY MAD about it. So you've got that going for you. Which is nice.
Having read the court's statement, the prosecutors were *not* blasted. The judge spoke very critically about the executive branch, but commended the prosecution for their professionalism. Poor reporting all around.
The specific prosecutors were not rebuked, however the judge did have some very hash words for the executive branch.
I'd suggest reading the entire transcript of the court's decision, and drawing your own conclusions. By comparison, that article in the post is far less interesting to read.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/drake/071511-transcript.pdf
One very important point that the Judge made: he blames the government (executive branch) as a whole, not the specific prosecutors who handled the case in the latter stages:
-------
THE COURT: I have one more matter to address,
and Mr. Welch, I know I asked some tough questions of you,
I've had some tough comments for the executive branch of
government today, but I want the record to reflect that both
you and Mr. Pearson have conducted yourself with the height
of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you
weren't known to the court before you arrived and I'm not
sure if you'll be back in this court because you're from
other jury jurisdiction, but I want to commend you for your
level of professionalism in all matters before the court,
both in public matters and some of the classified hearings
and I commend you for your professionalism. Sometimes it's
tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to
answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting
anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the
executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your
professionalism in this case.of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you
Sometimes it's
tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to
answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting
anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the
executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your
professionalism in this case.
--------------
That is a direct quote from the transcript, pages 47-48
I for one am glad Obama is taking horrible legal positions along the lines Bush did -- in some cases better because he is moving legally where Bush would delay treading. Its more likely for Obama to lose these cases and establish the law against this stuff than for some conservative judge to rubber stamp it. I do believe the liberal judges are less likely to distort their rulings in Obama's favor while I think they were more likely to do so for Bush.... however, since the corporations are at the heart of nearly everything it may not matter which party is doing what. I just hope Obama's people do a poor job; like how Bush purposely did a bad prosecution of that crook senator from Alaska. (known here for being "the internet is a bunch of pipes" senator.) One reason the case was so pathetic is they chucked most the "evidence" because they wanted to admit it as secret evidence only and that wasn't allowed -- something which Bush tried as well; what would have been better is if they could have had strong rulings AGAINST secret evidence that the legal system can't properly access (perhaps we have those already?)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The project this guy worked on dealt with the NSA data collection algorithms implemented to basically trap and filter damn near all the Internet traffic in the world. At one time this system was trapping the electronic equivalent of 6 Congressional Libraries every 6 hours and storing it on 1000's of servers located across the country. This guy complained that the data being collected included data from US sources which is precisely what the government said they would not do. The head engineer had even included a filter to prevent this from happening but NSA management order him to disable it and he quit to.
The Federal Prosecuters seem to presume that THEY can make up fruadulent charges at will and then walk away ...
NO!
Federal Prosecutes who engage in fruad must be held accountable ,,, erstwile KILLED.
Let the live action fron roof tops hunting of William M. Welch III begin.
May he enjoy his death.
--//++
Reading the court transcript, it's apparent the judge compliments both the defense and the prosecution. The judge's ire is for the executive department, he makes this clear several times; it's not against Mr Welch, who he praises for his professionalism.
The judge took issue with the 2 year gap between search & prosecution, but again, he doesn't lambast Mr. Welch; he berates the executive department. Welch only had the case for the last 6 months, as he states in the transcript.
Lakers Kobe Bryant, la superstar a rejeté les rapports d'une réunion le week-end avec Besiktas mais a déclaré qu'il était prÃt à "jouer n'importe oÃ" l'étranger alors que les pourparlers prolongés du travail NBA trébucher, air Jordan le Washington Post a rapporté lundi. nike air max classic Bryant a déclaré qu'il n'était pas au courant de spéculation qui a dit qu'il devait rencontrer des dirigeants de l'équipe turque à Washington, Louis Vuitton t-shirtDC, alors qu'il était en ville pour assister à match de samedi l'exposition en tournée européenne de football entre Manchester et poids lourds Unis Barcelone.
this is where YOUR money is going
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Prosecutors have immunity. Even when they knowingly break the law when trying to prosecute.
If we want crap like this to end, there need to be standards to revoke that immunity; either on a case-by-case basis or a blanket repeal thereof.
One area where they have no immunity is contempt of court. But to get slammed with that, the prosecutor would have to do something in the court that disrupts the proceedings and pisses off the judge badly enough.
Judges ought to do their part to prevent prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecution in this country has become more a game of winning the case than about getting justice. They don't care if they guy's guilty, if they break a few laws prosecuting him, whether they've respected his rights under the constitution, or any of those trivialities, to these guys it's about winning. We need to curb that by imposing (personal) sanctions on prosecutors for their misconduct. I think that if it's found that a defendant's trial wasn't speedy enough due to prosecutorial misconduct, the prosecutor should be found either in contempt or have some sanction imposed on them. My girlfriend's grandfather who was a judge for 15 years, once recounted a story of sanctioning a lawyer by telling him that he would not be allowed to practice law until after he passes the bar exam again.
I think perhaps if prosecutors had more personal stakes in seeing that they don't violate people's rights and behave appropriately our justice system would be well served. I think they'd think twice about fishing expeditions
the law. It was petty retribution for pointing out they were spying on all Americans and in the process wasting a Billion $ with a contractor that was incompetent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake and http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer