Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial

phantomfive writes "'Seven whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Obama administration,' writes Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer who advised two of them. She explains why they can't get a fair trial. In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, saying, 'he knew they should have been classified.' In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked. The defendants, all who have been charged with espionage, have limited access to court documents. Most of these problems happen because the law was written to deal with traitorous spies, not whistleblowers."

Comments

Traitorous spies?

[Vintermann]

Traitorous spies? No, that is false. The law was written to deal with socialists advocating isolationism in WWI.

Re:One and the same

[SirGarlon]

Going back retroactively to MAKE someone a criminal is an act of corruption and injustice.

It's also explicitly against the US Constitution: Article I, Section 9. The folks who wrote that document knew all the tricks in the tyrant's book -- from personal experience.

Of course, classified information is not a law, it's classified by executive order. I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written, and should not give the President a free pass to do what Congress is expressly forbidden from doing. By waving his hands and chanting "national security," the President places himself above the law and the Constitution. Again.

Re:Paywalled articles on slashdot

[_Sharp'r_]

Use this link instead, click on the top result:
https://www.google.com/search?...

A pain, I know.

Re:One and the same

[i kan reed]

It's actually because the espionage act defines things that "apparently should" be classified as protected under law too. It's a bad law, but it's not the same as ex post facto.

Re:One and the same

[VortexCortex]

Here's Eisenhower's farewell address to America. Note that he tried to warn us about everything that has come to pass.

Re:If 10 parties have 10% of the vote each

[penix1]

It's much more difficult to sack the US President, so difficult in fact that it's never happened and we've had some pretty bad presidents.

Actually, that is untrue. Nixon would have been convicted in the Senate had he not resigned. It was a count of the votes that convinced him to give up the ghost and protect what was left of the dignity of the office. Many forget that Vice President Agnew was forced to resign as well as had criminal charges filed against him. Again, he would have also been impeached and convicted had he not taken the plea deal.

To bring this back on topic...

It was Nixon's Watergate scandal that was the result of a whistle blower, (deep throat) that alerted the American public to the illegal dealings in the oval office. Without whistle blowers, the illegal activities of those in power would go unchecked much like it is today.