Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden On Trump Administration's Recent Arrest of an Alleged Journalistic Source (freedom.press)
Snowden writes: Winner is accused of serving as a journalistic source for a leading American news outlet about a matter of critical public importance. For this act, she has been charged with violating the Espionage Act -- a World War I era law meant for spies -- which explicitly forbids the jury from hearing why the defendant acted, and bars them from deciding whether the outcome was to the public's benefit. This often-condemned law provides no space to distinguish the extraordinary disclosure of inappropriately classified information in the public interest -- whistleblowing -- from the malicious disclosure of secrets to foreign governments by those motivated by a specific intent to harm to their countrymen. The prosecution of any journalistic source without due consideration by the jury as to the harm or benefit of the journalistic activity is a fundamental threat to the free press. As long as a law like this remains on the books in a country that values fair trials, it must be resisted. No matter one's opinions on the propriety of the charges against her, we should all agree Winner should be released on bail pending trial. Even if you take all the government allegations as true, it's clear she is neither a threat to public safety nor a flight risk. To hold a citizen incommunicado and indefinitely while awaiting trial for the alleged crime of serving as a journalistic source should outrage us all.
C'mon, Snowden. She leaked because she's insane, not patriotic.
The outrage should be that Hillary Clinton isn't in the Cell next to her for doing the same and worse. Not to mention the Pay to Play with State secrets she engaged in via her foundation.
If you are working in intelligence, you shouldn't be acting/engaging in political activism using information gathered/manufactured on your job.
He is right. Snowden is not a disinterested party, but he is still right.
Actually, he is quite wrong, starting with his initial representation of the matter.
No. She was not charged with espionage for being a journalistic source, she was charged with espionage for releasing classified material. She could have been a journalistic source all day every day for ten years and been untouched by the Espionage Act, if she had not deliberately mishandled classified material. That, and not "acting as a journalistic source", is the act for which she is charged.
The problem with the excuse that it was "inappropriately classified" is that Winner did not have the authority to reclassify it, and did not have the background necessary to know if it was properly classified or not.
What is it these days? Some people cry "treason" when an authorized representative of the US government tells another government intel about a common enemy, and excuses when an unauthorized flunky releases actual classified material.