Slashdot Mirror


Former FBI Agent Pleads Guilty To Leaking Secrets to the Associated Press

McGruber writes "Today, Former FBI agent Donald John Sachtleben has agreed to plead guilty to leaking secret government information about a bomb plot to the Associated Press. In May, Sachtleben agreed to plead guilty to unrelated charges of possessing and distributing child pornography, and to pay restitution to an identified victim portrayed in the images and videos he allegedly possessed." The deal includes a prison sentence of three years and seven months, and "If accepted by a judge, the prison sentence would be the longest ever handed down in a civilian court for a leak of classified information to a reporter."

41 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Congrats Obama! by the_scoots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Way to go on that transparency and leaker protection thing you so loved.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9GSBT_-JoQ

    1. Re:Congrats Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats an impressive clip. Two minutes of promises and I'm not sure a single one of them has been kept.

      No lobbyist in administration
      No corporate welfare pork barrel spending
      Posting bills for 5 days for comments before signing them
      Meetings between lobbyst and administration publically shown
      All tax breaks/subsidies for business publically listed

      So are people who called him a liar when he made that speech still racists?
      "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltare

    2. Re:Congrats Obama! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      He traded child pornography on numerous occasions with someone online. Both of whom were caught and pled guilty. They probably found evidence in their investigation which linked him to the leaks. These links weren't exposing wrong doing or malfeasance they were just straight up classified leaks that could expose undercover agents. It's believed he leaked them for monetary gain not even any noble patriotism. That's not a whistleblower, that's a pedophile who got caught selling classified documents.

  2. Why is he guilty when he should be a hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What ever happened to the whistleblower act? He should have immunity over this. Clearly the government has lost their mind and have gone completely tyrannical. Did you know that just last week the feds now told the police that anyone that there may be more to 9/11 than what meets the eye, like believing in WTC7 means that they're probably a terrorist? Using VPN, proxies, encryption, storing food for more than 5-days are other reasons as well. Every month new possibilities come up and anything we say online, on the phone, or over the radio can and will be used against us if we're deemed a threat to the government. In other words, the government doesn't give a shit about us, it's all about THEIR better interest. Whether you believe in any whistleblower or not of the past decade isn't what matters, what matters is the result of calling out your government for doing something illegal and then getting arrested that matters. This is a BIG problem and why people should be concerned. Next, your visitation to the therapist or doctor could be a reason for you to not bare arms or even be arrested as a suspected terrorist because quite frankly EVERYONE is a suspect at this point. But you know what they say, if everyone else is a suspect, there's a possibility that you're the one who's the real suspect, and quite frankly I think we can all agree that the government is the real terrorist, trying to scare the living crap out of people and telling them what to do "or else". /rant

    1. Re:Why is he guilty when he should be a hero? by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      Do you actually know the purpose of whistleblowing laws? You think it is designed to protect people who leak random classified information of no consequence to the law?

    2. Re:Why is he guilty when he should be a hero? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Yes, I know the purpose of the whistleblower protection act. Let me quote it for you.

      "The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."

      Now you're telling me that what was leaked is random classified information? Please... Cry me a river. We need a lot MORE transparency but this administration did the complete opposite of delivering it regardless of its promises to create it. You sound very ill informed and need a good lesson on what's going on in the US. When you're done, please come back and state your arguments again if they still apply. The government gets caught doing something illegal and the whistle-blowers are the ones going to prison. Who's the real criminal here? Who cares if the leak contains super classified information even if it has battle tactics, if the government doesn't want to be responsible then they don't deserve to use them in secrecy. Same with whatever else they do. They work for US not the other way around.

    3. Re:Why is he guilty when he should be a hero? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Where was he leaking information that fell under any of those categories?

  3. Priorities by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're pissed about the press leaks and out for blood, so he gets the longest ever sentence for leaking classified information.

    But the kiddie porn charges? Nah, just pay a fine.

    Wow.

    1. Re:Priorities by subsoniq · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the FBI press release abut the guilty plea on possession of child porn:

      According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven D. DeBrota, who is prosecuting the case for the government, Sachtleben could face five to 20 years in prison for the distribution charge and up to 10 years for the possession charge. Both charges also carry up to a $250,000 fine and lifetime supervised release if he is found to be guilty.

    2. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're pissed about the press leaks and out for blood, so he gets the longest ever sentence for leaking classified information.

      But the kiddie porn charges? Nah, just pay a fine.

      Wow.

      Please. The kiddie porn charges were to merely get him to enter a plea and move this along.

      Doesn't take a card-carrying FBI agent to Scooby Doo that bullshit. It's called a pressure point, and a rather effective one too, as you can see.

    3. Re:Priorities by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the kiddie porn charges? Nah, just pay a fine.

      I'll bet that if you could get a look at the actual evidence, you'd find that the kiddie porn thing is BS.

      If the government wants to pressure you to do something, that kind of blackmail is at the top of the hit list of their favorite moves.

      I guarantee you will never hear of a whistleblower and not hear shortly thereafter the words "kiddie porn" or "rape" or a whole basket of smears.

      See, the NSA couldn't do the kiddie porn or rape thing with Ed Snowden, because that might hurt their nice cozy contract the private intelligence firm Snowden worked for. But they still did their best to smear every detail of his life. Reading Bart Gellman's profile in the Washington Post is a revelation for anyone who has gotten their notions about Snowden from the usual royal court stenographers in the media.

      The entire security/intelligence apparatus of the United States stinks to high heaven. They're doing the kind of things that anyone who grew up in, or spent time in, Soviet satellite countries would recognize right away.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Priorities by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the FBI press release abut the guilty plea on possession of child porn: According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven D. DeBrota, who is prosecuting the case for the government, Sachtleben could face five to 20 years in prison for the distribution charge and up to 10 years for the possession charge. Both charges also carry up to a $250,000 fine and lifetime supervised release if he is found to be guilty.

      Does anyone besides me think it's ridiculous that a person can get 10 years in prison for possession of a JPEG image on his computer?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re:Priorities by GumphMaster · · Score: 2

      Does anyone besides me think it's ridiculous that a person can get 10 years in prison for possession of a JPEG image on his computer?

      Probably. However, that is the upper bound of sentencing available to the judge; tempered by the facts of the case and offender, not a mandatory sentence, and probably not even a typical sentence.

      It is, however, not just a JPEG ( I would be surprised if cases before the courts hinged on a single JPEG). The image is evidence of of crime and pattern of behaviour that few societies, including prison societies, will tolerate. Sure, the possessor might not have perpetrated the original child-abuse crime but at the very best they are ignoring it and allowing it to continue.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    6. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this supposed to make me think with my feelings instead of my brain?
      What if there were no pictures but the gang-rape happened anyway. Would everything be fine and dandy then?

      No, the problem is that people can't differ between committing an action and the documenting thereof.
      10 years in prison for a rapist, fine. 10 years in prison for possessing a picture of the action while not otherwise taking part thereof, that is excessive.

      This will never change as long as people show up to defend such a skewed system.
      Please change your opinions, you are one of the reasons out legal system doesn't work.

    7. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was living in one of those Soviet satellite countries and I am afraid that USA (and to high level other western countries) is about half way to become as oppressive as commie regimes in these countries in late 80s - I'll give it another 15-20 years.
      The horror is it wont stop there. With the increasing surveillance capabilities it will go all the way to North Korea status.
      Spying and blackmailing is the most effective tool to terrorize the citizens. Even if you are a superhero and you don not mind to be threatened by imprisonment or ruining your own life, there are other methods (one popular and very disgusting commie trick was to threaten to deny your children high level education).

      The Surveillance is THE SINGLE BIGGEST danger to democracy because once it exceeds a certain threshold then there might not be a way back for centuries - if ever until humanity destroys itself.

  4. What restitution? by guises · · Score: 2

    The idea behind restitution is to make whole someone who has been injured or caused some loss by another's actions. Unless this is a copyright issue, I don't see how possessing or distributing child pornography could be associated with any kind of monetary restitution. Creation of child pornography perhaps - the child could claim some trauma or, maybe at the outside, damage to their reputation. This doesn't make any sense though.

    1. Re:What restitution? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I don't see how possessing or distributing child pornography could be associated with any kind of monetary restitution. Creation of child pornography perhaps

      The restitution goes to a kid in one of the pictures he was distributing. Maybe not 100% fair, but there's nothing fair about that situation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:What restitution? by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      The restitution goes to a kid in one of the pictures he was distributing. Maybe not 100% fair, but there's nothing fair about that situation.

      I would be wary of the situation. Firstly, what the courts accept as child pornography can be seriously out of balance with what the average person would consider it as. Parents have been convicted of taking pictures of their children playing in the bathtub to send to family members. Most families have taken pictures of their young children in the nude, and this is not sexual in any way for them. So be very careful taking any charge or conviction of a sexual nature at face value. People have been put on sex offender registries for taking a drunken piss in the bushes. And then there's teenagers having sex; Something I think most of us will admit we did, but that can seriously ruin someone's life due to poorly worded or draconian "for the children" legislation.

      I guess my point is... there are plenty of examples where a fine is purely punitive, and there is, in actuality, no victim. Is that the case here? I don't know; It's not like the article provides sufficient detail. And this all ignores the thorny issue of how this 'child porn' charge is claimed to be unrelated, yet turns up over the course of an investigation into leaking of classified information and then makes it into the popular press. It is a suspect situation to say the least. And the entire plea bargaining system is hopelessly corrupt -- they typically trump up the charges so much that you could be looking at 300 years in the electric chair because they've taken a single criminal act and turned it into thirty different felonies.

      Most cases don't go to trial, not because the defense has no merit, but because the defense browns its pants due to the enormity of what it's being charged with and decides taking a plea deal that's a tiny fraction of what they're being charged with is reasonable even if they aren't guilty. Any public defender will tell you the legal system is a crap shoot. Sometimes you get justice, but there's a lot of innocent people in jail, victims of racial profiling, or for simply "looking guilty" to the jury. All of these considerations means that what's stated in the press release can safely be assumed to not be enough to form any conclusion about the person's guilt or innocence.

      And in cases like this, doubly so because the political pressure is so great; One of the first things they teach you in psychological warfare is to discredit your detractors. If someone leaks government information, you have to destroy their credibility. Nothing kills credibility like an accusation of child porn, rape, etc. You'll notice that many of the people who have been accused of leaking classified information have been later accused of sexual impropriety; This is statistically very improbable.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Re:Whistleblowers and kiddie porn .. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    It does seem that way. Before you leak, destroy all your storage media lest you find unexpected photos appearing on them.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  6. Re:I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm growing more and more horrified to be a citizen of the USSA.

    You're welcome to leave and find out what an actual repressive state looks like, kid.

  7. Not A Saint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did he leak info that uncovered government wrong doing? No. Did he leak info that showed corruption? No. Did he leak info to protect innocent victims from harm? No. Those would all be excellent and justifiable reasons to break his oath and provide information to outside sources. He was just being a moron.

    Not everyone who leaks information deserves protection or is a whistle blower.

    1. Re:Not A Saint by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Did he leak info that uncovered government wrong doing? No. Did he leak info that showed corruption? No. Did he leak info to protect innocent victims from harm? No. Those would all be excellent and justifiable reasons to break his oath and provide information to outside sources. He was just being a moron.

      Not everyone who leaks information deserves protection or is a whistle blower.

      Why did Bradley Manning get outed as a transexual, and Donald Sachtleben get outed as a trafficker in child pornography? Bradley Manning got first pick.

      Makes you wonder what Edward Snowden will have retroactively done to offend the religious right and justify a long prison sentence. You know, after he's extradited by the U.S. from a country with which the U.S. has no extradition treaty.

    2. Re:Not A Saint by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Did he leak info that uncovered government wrong doing? No. Did he leak info that showed corruption? No. Did he leak info to protect innocent victims from harm? No. Those would all be excellent and justifiable reasons to break his oath and provide information to outside sources.

      Yes, but not the only "excellent and justifiable" reasons to leak. For all the money we spend on the 'war on terror', it would be nice to occasionally hear from the front lines what the actual threats are. But we almost never do. We're simply told there are terrorists out there, and we have to spend tons of money and sacrifice our civil liberty, but we're rarely handed evidence to support this. It has to be taken on faith.

      Do you feel this is an acceptable state of affairs for a democratic country? The claim of 'national security' has been going on for over a decade now, and it's gotten to the point that we have CNN reporters standing outside commenting and speculating about why police cruisers and military convoys are coming and going out of an area, and the official word is... erm, nothing. We've had to guess so often at what's really going on that it's become a running joke for political satirists.

      Not everyone who leaks information deserves protection or is a whistle blower.

      No, but neither should the mere act of leaking information invoke charges of treason, decades in prison, etc. The value of the information and the actual harm caused by its release must also be taken into consideration. Here we have a case where the public was never made aware of the leak. Only a few reporters were, who promptly contacted the government and abided their wishes not to publish. The damage to operational security here was minimal. We do not punish people on the "what could have happened" scales, but on the "what did happen" scales of justice.

      Yet, when it comes to matters of national security (which is increasingly invoked for everything from senators being stopped for speeding to drug dealers handing out marijuana), we're not being told what's going on, nor is there much evidence that the punishment is at all in keeping with the actual harm caused. This is a problem, and while I'm not disagreeing that this guy should have kept is damn mouth shut, his opening it didn't cause much harm... he should have simply been fired, and perhaps spend a few months to a year at most in jail, or put on probation. Sometimes people are stupid... it doesn't mean they're a continuing threat to society, and that's the only reason we should ever consider imprisonment.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Not A Saint by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, outed himself as a transexual. It actually appears he did what he did deliberately to get imprisoned so the federal government would have to pay for his expensive hormone replacement/gender reassignment "therapy".

      Except the federal government doesn't do that, even if a few right wing nutjobs want to pretend it does.

      Exactly. The 8th amendment decisions that apply to state and federal prisons, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, do NOT apply to military prisons, which are under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), rather than the U.S. Constitution. So this was not the reason.

  8. It's just a page from Machiavelli's "The Prince" - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Respect can be lost, but fear sticks around.

    And that is exactly what the sons of bitches who are behind the
    curtain ( the ones who pull the strings that make Obama move )
    are interested in : making sure Americans are terrified to speak
    out.

  9. Re:I'm shocked by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm growing more and more horrified to be a citizen of the USSA.

    You're welcome to leave and find out what an actual repressive state looks like, kid.

    said the anonymous coward.

  10. Re:Whistleblowers and kiddie porn .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or they're legit charges. I've spent a lot of years in the "state security apparatus" as an outlier. I have been deployed far, far forward, worked 'back office', cross assigned, etc. I will say that my experience with the FBI (never having worked for them, only with them) is that they are consummate professionals. I know they have politics like the rest of the community, but somehow they seemed to rise above it, even to their own detriment. This guy was likely really into his flavor of porn. The community at large, like it or not, is a microcosm of society. There is every flavor of criminal that slips past the interview process (and the pathetic 'box' (polygraph)). While it may seem en vogue to support any whistle blower that comes along, they are often doing what they do to cover for something else. I know that's not popular, but it is reality. Anyway, the FBI is by an large a good group of folks. Their leadership may suck at times and they may have some cosmic proportion failures to their credit, but I don't believe they're wrong on the prosecution of this fellow.

  11. Re:Whistleblowers and kiddie porn .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It does seem that way. Before you leak, destroy all your storage media lest you find unexpected photos appearing on them.

    If you do not have incriminating media or devices, one will be provided for you by the state.

  12. Re:I'm shocked by Desler · · Score: 2

    Yes, anonymous free speech. A necessary right spoken of in the Federalist Papers. Why is his point less valid because he used a different pseudonym than you? If not hiding behind pseudo-anonymity makes your point more valid please provide all your personally identifying info.

  13. Re:I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will get you started.

    Why is it that stupid people like you always assume the US must be compared to the USSR
    when there are questions about the US ?

    Maybe it's because your stupid ass has never traveled outside the US and because your
    daddy who bought the old double-wide trailer you live in was a member of the John Birch Society ?

    There are many other countries in the world which are far less repressive than
    the US or Russia.

    Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and France are good examples.

    The US is far from the best country in the world. One of the best strategies for choosing
    a country is to avoid any countries which are attempting or even pretending to be a serious
    power in the geopolitical sense. That means Russia, China, and the US are out. For an
    intelligent person there are metrics which show the US is not even close to the top of the
    list of best countries to live in. One example is the number of prisoners per capita. The US
    is either at the top of that list or near the top, which is not what anyone with decent intelligence
    would expect from a country which was supposed to be so wonderful.

    So fuck you and your ignorant redneck brain-dead bullshit.

  14. Re:I'm shocked by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm growing more and more horrified to be a citizen of the USA.

    Why? It seems like a fair sentence to me. There was no "whistleblowing" here that I can see. His disclosure compromised field agents, and could have done real harm. He was apparently just leaking classified info for his own benefit. This guy was not a Snowden, or even a Manning.

  15. Re:I'm shocked by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    It seems likely that something else was really going on, the FBI agent was feeding information to the reporter for money but they couldn't prove it, hence they searched for anything and everything they could charge the agent with instead. So likely there were a whole series of leaks they couldn't pin to the agent but they where fairly certain the agent was the problem.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  16. Re:It's just a page from Machiavelli's "The Prince by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    And so the Anonymous Cowards protested. They rose up with their masks to protect their identity, and with picket signs of void pointers: Not even in white, for that could be misunderstood as flags of surrender, but unvoiced as transparencies instead. In silence they marched, unseen, all around us, always and forever. Not the heroes we need, but quantum superpositions of both the heroes we deserve and the ones that don't exist... The potential for great change -- A waveform never destined to collapse.

  17. As long as there are humans running the government by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 2

    rule of law is exactly the same as rule of man, just a couple more inconvenient steps.

  18. Re:I'm shocked by rioki · · Score: 2

    The possession as single ground for prosecution is a dangerous can of worms. Originally with VCR tapes and paper pictures this law made some sense, but now you can embed a 0x0 sized picture into a website and boom instant dissident conviction machine. Although I don't know about the details of this case, this sounds somewhat similar... Oh, you leaked some secret documents, ey?

  19. Child Pornography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, now I see a use for the NSA backdoors in systems. Offend your masters and hey presto, you're paedophile and here's [uploading .... ] the evidence to prove it.

  20. Re: I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The US doesn't have secret police arresting people purely for opposing the government like the KGB, Stasi, or Gestapo.

    The US has 16 different secret agencies and many of them have police authorities. And Yes, they have arrested people purely for opposing the government, though certainly not on the same scale as the KGB.

  21. unauthorized national defense information. by nbritton · · Score: 2

    From the article:

    one count of unauthorized possession and retention of national defense information.

    What exactly does that mean? It's now a thought crime to know anything about national defense?

  22. Whistleblowers are always sex offenders I guess by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

    I'm just surprised how whistleblowers and IMF chiefs who question the value of the U.S. dollar always turn out to be peodophiles and rapists. I would almost suspect that someone is setting them up on those charges in an attempt to discredit them in the public eye (and erode any support they may have for their whistleblowing). But that's just silly. Besides, the only one capable of pulling that off is our fine, noble, honest government. And they would surely never do anything like that.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  23. Kiddie Porn charge must be crap by tekrat · · Score: 2

    Have you noticed that anyone the government doesn't like gets either a kiddie porn charge or a rape charge thrown against them? Meanwhile actual government contractors get away with rape, human trafficking and actual kiddie-porn & pedophilia with no consequences (DynCorp, Haliburton).

    The US government is very, very corrupt and run by some nasty-ass evil fucks. And I don't mean the "elected" officials, I mean the lobbyists who really run things.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  24. Re: I'm shocked by Nadaka · · Score: 2

    What specific political party did Snowden "target"?

    The intelligence apparatus he confirmed has broad bipartizan support at the highest levels.