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.
IIS Traitor? Is he using Apache now?
Well, good for him, I guess.
He is right. Snowden is not a disinterested party, but he is still right.
If you replace "serve as a journalistic source" with "feed their family" and "disclosed classified data" with "stole/dealt drugs", I think you end up with a far more sympathetic case for miscarriage of justice. Of course, not one that affects Snowden personally, so, you know.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You get to get an all expenses paid reassignment surgery though.
Way to go Snowden - hiding in a country that has little/no freedom of press and attacking a country prosecuting an individual for releasing state secrets/classified information. NSA contractors know that they will handle classified information - which by its very nature is information that is not allowed to be released to the public. That's what they agree to when they sign up - and now he's advocating for allowing contractors to release whatever information they feel like for 'Freedom of Press' reasons? Sorry buddy - you're out to lunch. State secrets and classified information is needed for a country to function - otherwise you might as well just tear it apart and offer it up to whoever has the most muscle.
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.
In what way was the document that Reality Leigh Winner leaked *whistleblowing*...?
It just seems like a cheapening of the term...
"Whistleblower" protections should not extend to leakers whose purpose is domestic partisan-political in nature.
Revealing things like Snowden did which are blatantly unconstitutional acts by government are one thing, but revealing certain confidential/secret/top-secret information to harm political enemies should never be protected.
I notice Snowden did not in any way endorse Winner's specific actions, only the relevant laws in general and their draconian nature.
Strat
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think not.
She didn't expose governmental wrongdoing like Snowden did, and it's a stretch to argue that the information she released was in the public interest. Russian hacking attempts have been public knowledge for some time before she decided to provide The Intercept with the classified info in question - all her leak did was provide some details on said Russian hacking attempts.
I agree with Snowden that the restrictions the Espionage Act places on Ms. Winner's ability to get a fair trial are unjust, but let's be clear - she's no Eric Snowden.
... to challenge the constitutionality of the Espionage act, and hope that, for the right reasons, the Supreme Court will ultimately strike it down. Unfortunately this implies several years of legal battle for a Winner... but she may not have another choice anyway.
Attitudes make the difference between Space and Time: we want to MAX our temporal, and MIN our spatial extension.
Sorry, you don't get to give out classified information, not even to CIA owned propaganda organizations.
Enjoy your time in Leavenworth!
According to Snowden's logic, any leak is legal, no matter what information it is, as long as you leak it to a news organization.
Snowden's view here is absolutely and catagorically correct, and for the right reasons.
Since when is The Intercept a leading news outlet?
EOFI - Elements of Friendly Information. This is when bits and pieces that are considered not top secret could still, when put together with other pieces of information, could allow someone to piece it together and eventually learn something that is top secret. Regardless, she took an oath to protect the top secret information. But, what she also did was search for it when it wasn't something she needed access to at the time. Getting a top secret security clearance requires an extensive background check which includes family background check, character references, as well as an extensive financial/credit history check to ensure you are not in financial trouble, which could make you a mark for bribary to sell information. In this particular case, she printed out, emailed to a private email account (doing just as her mentor Hillary did), and then emailed the top secret document to the news service. She violated the U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 37 793. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... This particular paragraph pretty much sums up she broke this US Code: (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense Now, maybe it may not have anything to do with the national defense, but it could. It was top secret for a reason. What about the sailor who took selfies on a 20-year-old submarine? He was put in prison even though it was an innocent mistake. In this case, this was not innocent. If it was, she was an idiot but since she served in the same branch of the armed services I served in (and I had top secret security clearance), I have to assume she knew what she was doing. And now both her and her mom are afraid she'll be made an example of, and possibly made to disappear? Wow. Talk about conspiracy theories, but if you take a look at what she posted on social media, it fits her narrative. But, considering what she wrote on her social media accounts, I'm surprised she was even allowed to work with a Top Secret security clearance. That is usually a big red flag for jobs like this.
What she leaked was certainly not whistle blowing. A report that states people were spear phished by a foreign government is nearly a daily event for many of us, and I don't even work in DOD any longer where it was multiple times a day. This was dumping data for purely political purposes, not presenting wrong doing and cover up. Snowden and Manning both could be claimed as whistle blowers.
As to the claim that this should be in front of a jury I would agree if, and only if, the jury members all had the correct clearance and could be trusted outside of court with information learned in the case. Evidence in these types of trials will contain at least some classified material/methods. It must be established "how" they tracked down the 6 sources and narrowed down to one.
For those who cry "1st Amendment", the 1st does not protect you from consequences. Hell, the founders of the US lived knowing that at any moment the King of England would lop their heads off if given the chance.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The interesting thing is, she searched for evidence of Russian hacking. She had access to all the classified information as well. What she found was the extent of the evidence held by our intelligence agencies.
It appears from what was printed, that they have nearly NO evidence of Russian interference. A couple SpearPhishing attacks at voting machine manufacturers is the extent of their evidence? So someone made an EMAIL and that is unquestionable proof? If that is all it takes to make the NSA and ENTIRE government say illegal hacking happened and a year long issues, how long before someone crafts an email from someone else to frame them? It would literally take me an afternoon to frame Russia in this way to produce this evidence, and its all the NSA has?
I think she accidently blew the lid off the entire thing. From this point on, anyone claiming there is proof is literally making stuff up.
Considering Al Qaeda's roots are as a CIA/ISI proxy in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion, no, it did not start with Obama. US support for terrorism didn't start with Reagan, Carter or Ford, either...
To put it another way, Snowden is saying that in order for it to be espionage, you have to have actually transferred the secret to a foreign government; if we are not allowed to consider the motivation for the release, then we can't establish that as a matter of fact. Of course we can always _say_ that a journalist is actually an agent of a foreign government, but under the espionage act we aren't even allowed to address that question.
That is all.
The part where secretly violating the constitution isn't violating the constitution, apparently, because it's done in secret, and can't be spoken of.
Exposing hidden evidence of a foreign power attacking US voting machines? Whistleblowing works for me.
Suppose an employee at a recording label run across an old Beatles tape. Suppose they listened to it and thought everyone should hear it. Their employer said no because the band did not want it published. So, does this hypothetical employee have the right to go to the Rolling Stone or Spin magazine and have them publish the music and do a review? The tapes would have been a source of journalistic material. But at the end of the day it is theft of private property.
No it's not. According to Snowden's logic, a jury should decide on whether this is malicious or whistleblowing for the greater good.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
If handing over classified info to journalists is made always legal, then the govt. would just use contract law to ruin the leakers financially, or have them assassinated in an exotic way like Polonium poisoning. It'd also make it easier for a real spy to become employed as a journalist and make agents out of intelligence agency employees/contractors.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Thats pretty much common law, Juries are supposed to judge both the accused and the law itself. That is their exact function in our society.
Good-bye
> Not sure this qualifies as whistle blowing.
And the point of the article was to let a jury decide that.
Juries decide the facts based on the evidence, i.e. did she knowing disclose classified information. Why she did so does not alter such facts. Why she did so is something to consider during sentencing as a mitigating factor to perhaps give her a lighter sentence.
Not sure this qualifies as whistle blowing.
Whistle blowing would be going to an appropriate Senator or Member of the House and saying something like "I have classified information that the Congress should be aware of", and waiting for members of Congress with intelligence oversight authority ordering her to reveal the information.
Except that the law she's charged under explicitly keeps the jury from considering WHY she did it. If it's shown that she did it (and it's pretty clear she did it), then she's guilty of espionage under the law no matter what her motivation. It catches spies and whistle-blowers in the same net.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
But should violating your security clearance cost you the right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers?
When one voluntarily joins the military or an intelligence agency one voluntarily signs a contract agreeing that one's rights will be limited during the term of that contract.
Snowden appears to be arguing that she should be able to use a necessity defense; i.e provide justification for her acts and thus not guilty of a crime. That generally, IIRC, requires you to prove that you 1) acted to prevent a great harm by doing a lesser one; 2) you had no legal way to prevent the harm; 3) the danger was imminent.
If you can't prove all 3 the courts won't let you present that defense; so the prohibition in this case is not unique. What is different is Congress decided to codify it's prohibition into law rather than rely on the common law. Under those circumstances, I would think SCOTUS would defer to Congress and uphold the law since it is a codification of common law.
Independent of the rightness or wrongness of he actions; I would guess she would have a hard time proving all 3 criteria were met. Any harm had already passed and there was no imminent danger of it continuing, and she had a legal means to raise concerns. The reality of the situation appears to be she was pissed over the election and decided to do something; an act of civil disobedience that resulted in her arrest.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
No it's not. According to Snowden's logic, a jury should decide on whether this is malicious or whistleblowing for the greater good.
With respect to national security matters whistleblowing would be going to Congress not the press. Plus there is the issue of waving certain rights when you voluntarily enter into a contract with the military or intelligence agencies.
;-)
Also for trials involving classified material shouldn't a jury of peers be people with an appropriate security clearance and not the general public?
NginX, but good attempt.
Place something witty here
No, juries are NOT supposed to judge the law. That's what challenges, brought as necessary before voters (to change out the legislature to one that might change the law) or through constitutionality tests before courts (up to the SCOTUS) are for. The jury is supposed to do what the judge says: evaluate whether or not the prosecution has shown that the defendant broke the law. Period. That is the "exact function" of the jury, and we have other mechanisms in place with the "exact function" of changing laws or, if they are unconstitutional, dismantling them in whole or in part.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Thats pretty much common law, Juries are supposed to judge both the accused and the law itself. That is their exact function in our society.
Its also common law to hang traitors. You sure you want to go the medieval historical precedent path? :-)
How does that work?
Exposing hidden evidence of a foreign power attacking US voting machines? Whistleblowing works for me.
Whistle blowing would be going to Congress, not the foreign press.
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.
I read The Text of that Law and find no reference at all to restrictions on what the jury is allowed to hear. Moreover, it uses the phrase
with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,
more than once. It seems challenging to me to obtain a proper conviction where one needs to show "with intent or reason to believe" and not allow the jury to hear from the defendant what that person intended or had reason to believe, especially since not permitting the jury to hear from the defendant in matters regarding intent violates the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. That said, the way this law is phrased does poor service to people who believe the information obtained will be used to the benefit of the United States, since "benefit to the United States" itself provides advantage to those foreign nations who are allies of the United States, and the law makes no distinction between allies and opponents among foreign nations. I suppose it could be argued that with a sufficiently strong "America First" policy in place, benefit to the USA does not also benefit our allies. Certainly, any law that doesn't permit the defendant to tell the jury why she did what she did ought to be repealed or rewritten so that this is no longer the case.
Exposing hidden evidence of a foreign power attacking US voting machines? Whistleblowing works for me.
There was no "exposure" of this information, as Russian (and Chinese, and everyone else) poking and prodding at the email addresses of companies and organizations involved in our voting infrastructure and processes goes on every day and has been for years, both here and in every other country. She'd only be a "whistleblower" if she was aware of information that showed her own government was somehow the cause of or party to this - and the information she illegally passed along shows no such thing. It showed classified details about facts already, in broader terms, well understood by anybody with a casual interest and access to Google. She did this strictly for street cred and bragging rights so one of her favorite lefty media outlets could show how active it is, even if the documents she gave them shed exactly zero new light on the important aspects of the topic. All she did was expose classified nitty-gritty details that may, perhaps, help the spearfishing Russians to get a little better at what they do.
At no point were voting machines attacked, or any data altered. Implying that is just another attempt to deflect attention from why the party that's experienced such losses through the last few elections crashed and burned so badly in November in a continuation of that losing streak. This woman who leaked the data sounds, based on her unhinged postings, like someone who absolutely could never bring herself to stop for a moment and wonder why the Democrats had lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House and (as a result) the Supreme Court. Too much for her to process, because it would require some actual self-evaluation that would take the fun out of her crazy world view. So, she did what she did because it's the child-like, romantic #RESIST! thing to do, because that sort of phony posturing is really all she and the people she's cheering for actually have.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
yes, it does matter. You have accidental death, manslaughter, murder and murder 1 in the USA all differentiated on what you intended and why you did it.
Indeed the jury has to derermine whether the law was INTENDED to cover the case at all, no matter what the wording of the law says, it's WHY there is a jury nullification.
And if the reason for doing it is irrelevant, then there's no such thing as espionage, just leaking confidential information. That you did it for a foreign power you are in thrall to is irrelevant, because that's merely WHY you did it, not WHAT you did. She could just say "Not guilty" because the charge is being a spy. And since she's not, she's not guilty. If asked "did you leak information", then this isn't a charge of being a spy, so is irrelevant and doesn't have to be answered. "Did you give russians confidential information at their behest" is what being a spy is, but she didn't do that. And "Trying to harm the US" isn't spying, and is still another "why you did it" that is, apparently, irrelevant.
The Intercept is foreign? Have we really reached a level of Russiafication of the US now that American journalists are considered foreign, presumably because they're not Russian?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
While I agree with much of what you say, and I do think they should throw the book at her.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The Intercept is foreign? Have we really reached a level of Russiafication of the US now that American journalists are considered foreign, presumably because they're not Russian?
I thought Greenwald was UK for some reason, probably because of his work for The Guardian.
The document seems to be a summary of an *ongoing* investigation - in what way is it "hidden evidence"?
She saw something juicy, and she leaked it - theres nothing here which is whistleblowing. In the document she released, there is no evidence of wrong doing by the NSA, her employers, her colleagues or the government, just some information on an in progress investigation.
Snowden complains that the Espionage Act..." explicitly forbids the jury from hearing why the defendant acted, and bars them from deciding whether the outcome was to the public's benefit". You see, Ed, the problem with traitors like you is that you feel you have the right to unilaterally decide whether the classified material you were entrusted to access should be leaked to the public. Did you go to a classified jury, to get a classified decision from a panel of your peers? Did you have a full understanding of the harm to our government's capabilities and clandestine assets? No, you just decided that because of your passionate political beliefs, it would be in everyone's best interest if you just leaked everything. The damage you caused to National Security can hardly be overstated. You went far beyond any reasonable definition of "whistleblowing". You informed all of our adversaries of the precise capabilities of our abilities to intercept communications and to decrypt encrypted content. You're a traitor, and a moron. Reality Winner is a traitor and a moron.
"For this act, she has been charged with violating the Espionage Act -- a World War I era law meant for spies -- "
You can't tell me there are no agendas in a comment like this. You can't just state something like that as if it's fact.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not suicide pacts
You're right, they aren't. If they are leading us down a bad path, there are processes in place for amending the Constitution. But you wanna know what is a suicide pact? Anything that's been steamrolled through those processes.
In what way is the country functioning now? Republicans are only interested in helping their party and destroying anyone outside their tribe.
Democrats are not doing the same thing with exactly your next statements?
We have a president elected despite losing by 3 million votes.
The United States of America has _NEVER_EVER_ elected a President by popular vote. The founders saw the danger in a tyranny by majority and saw fit that we have an Electoral College to protect us from exactly that thing. Citation: Read the Federalist papers
We're unable to agree with everyone else and a majority of our citizens that yes, healthcare is something that is important and yes,
"We" is in invalid generalization. Perhaps in your bubble the next things are the most important thing ever (more on that in a moment) but that is not "we", that is "you".
dumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a bad thing.
And you as a consumer can ensure that you purchase products made in the most efficient way. We don't need Government taxing the poor to pay for things they don't have, and can't be bothered to worry about.
There is a big difference between you stealing from me with government force, and me wanting to make changes which benefit society. In fact, as a general rule the louder you scream demanding the fruits of my labor, the more I push back against you which impacts your cause. I, like many fellow people in the world, ignore appeals to emotion.
We don't have a functioning state department and are actively turning on our allies.
Too vague to be worth discussing.
Did a foreign power decide our election? Dunno, the unelected party is preventing any serious investigation.
Not according to the last administration or this one, and no evidence has been presented to back such an allegation. The investigation started nearly 11 months ago and we still have seen no evidence of foreign interference in our election process. Testimony from Clapper, Comey, and Rogers all stated that our election was not "hacked", and that no votes were changed.
If evidence surfaces perhaps we can discuss it further. Until then, you are simply repeating a propositional fallacy like many other people. I find it very sad that repeating faulty logic has become so common, and worse, people think they are "smart" by doing it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Knowing about jury nullification is a good means to get disqualified from jury service. Simply hint that you know what it is and you are out the door.
War does not require a declaration of war from both sides. It's possible for one country to attack another with no declarations issued, but they're still at war.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Note to Self....remember in case of selection for jury duty next time.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Misleading? How? I call BS without much more clarification and even then most likely still a BS claim.
Prior to the Electoral College, States chose Electors. In 1787 six of the ten voting States used any form of popular vote to determine the election. In 1792, six of fifteen states used popular votes to determine the election. In both of those elections "Electors" were tallied, not vote counts for a popular vote.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
While she wasn't so foolish as to reveal any methods or resources, we can't be certain whether Russia was aware we were onto them.
It's motherfucking *Russia*.
Home of FSB, and before that KGB.
Do you really believe that they could genuinely be unaware of this ?
That they, with all their might, were totally unable to know things that an inexperienced, extremely young, and rather emotionaly unstable / immature contractor has managed to get hold onto ?
Or is it more likely that they were aware, but simply pretended not to, and this leak a convenient pretext to stop acting surprised anymore.
(The same argument I've been repeating about any actual use of Snowden for Russia beyond the obvious PR / Propaganda).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
She has been charged for removing classified data from controls and providing it to unauthorized persons.
If she had handed it out to her friends, she'd have been charged with the same thing (had it been discovered). Had she provided it to Russia or China or Israel, eventually she'd probably get caught and charged with spying too.
It was not because she provided it to media, although doing so certainly led the government right to her.
You simply cannot read and sign the security agreements that go along with access and expect to be able to ignore them because of feelz, politics, or even "whistleblowing" without consequences. Handing classified documents over to media is no different than handing them over to China.
The paperwork I signed for my clearance had "punishable by death" in them...
This is not some sort of overreaction, if you mishandle classified data, expect prison...even under Obama...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.
Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.
Prosecutors asked US district judge Stefan Underhill to send Saucier to prison for five years, saying his conduct put national security at risk.
What "whistleblowing" took place? Did she expose some illegal activity on the part of the US Government? Did she expose some illegal activity on the part of the US Government personnel? Not that I've seen. So far as I understand it, she just exposed normal, run-of-the-mill intelligence data collected about foreign government actions.
Did she pursue the "whistleblowing" chain-of-command? The United States Presidential Policy Directive 19, signed by President Barack Obama, is designed to ensure that employees who serve in the Intelligence Community or have access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse, while protecting classified information. Did she follow those procedures?
No, I think not. She took classified documents directly to the press, thus the charges she faces.
I think the above can be explored in court, and jurors can reasonably decide if she broke the law or should be protected as a whistleblower without requiring access to the classified data itself.
You have a constitutional right to write anything you want. But I don't think you get a 1st Amendment pass to lie of your taxes.
And she had the benefit of specifically subjecting herself to the strictures and subsequent penalties when she sign her security paperwork.
Mishandling classified data does not require treason, nor intent. You either handle it properly or you don't. If you fail to handle it properly, you can go to prison. Period. It doesn't matter why you did it, even if it was accidental.
Jury Nullification!
No - to an American journalist each time and not directly to the public.
Petraeus leaked it to a journalist as well. Distracting with reserve ranks and so on is just dishonest - she was not cleared for the information and she was working in the capacity of a journalist and not in the capacity of a military officer with a right to the information.
So all of them leaking to American journalists. No espionage involved.
It's rather funny to see you acting against one of the major ideas of the American way, that nobody is above or below the law, just to push your petty little partisan barrow. That's very Soviet of you putting "The Party" ahead of the country.
That applies to Snowden, not Winner. He revealed unconstitutional actions by the NSA. She prejudged the outcomes of at least five ongoing agency and legislative investigations, and ignored all the legal options she had.
Nice.
Those who claim that the second decade of the 20th century was a source of terrible laws and court rulings now have another datapoint in support of their contention. Several bad FDR administration actions were exercises of presidential power granted during that period.
And now this.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
"I find it very sad that repeating faulty logic has become so common, and worse, people think they are "smart" by doing it."
Yes. When a political strategy works astoundingly well, the opposition will attempt to co-opt it.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain