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
They either were not that smart, or not that corrupt. Take your pick.
FanFictionRecs.net
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)
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.
But not the way it should be...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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
Government of Somalia is EXTREMELY corrupt. US government is corrupt, but manages to maintain its amateur status.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
A 900 pound amateur corrupt gorilla is much more dangerous for everybody than an extremely corrupt gazelle.
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?
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
You can't describe any government on the planet without also including the word corruption somewhere in your description. The US government is no more corrupt than any other international government and in some instances the it is a great deal less corrupt. You want to see real corruption? Try Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Mexico, Venezuela, Pakistan, Egypt (and no the new government will not be any less corrupt than the old one), and damn near every country on the African continent. And unfortunately it is the US that has been providing these countries with all the goodies that mysteriously end up getting re-directed away from their intended destination into the leaders pockets. It's time for the US to cease all government aid to foreign countries. And I mean none, nada, not a penny. If someone wants any money let them openly request it in writing and explain exactly what it will be used for and allow outside auditors to monitor the transactions. Need a little military help? Put it in writing and be prepared to receive an itemized bill with 50% due up front. Hell, if the US government were not over run with idiots they could actually start making money on the military instead of giving it away for free. Sure this type of thing will lead to dictators and all kinds of other problems but as long as they keep it within their own borders who gives a shit. China, Russia both beat the US corruption index because they don't even pretend to be transparent and accountable in the first place and if any of their citizens do complain too much they are easy to remove. I am NOT saying there is no corruption in the US government but it hardly sets the standard either.
If you came from Somalia you wouldn't think it was funny - you'd prefer to live in the US any day as I believe some have managed to do.
This is all just my personal opinion.