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.
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.
In what way was the document that Reality Leigh Winner leaked *whistleblowing*...?
It just seems like a cheapening of the term...
C'mon, Snowden. She leaked because she's insane, not patriotic.
I don't know about insane, but certainly not very bright. From: Reality Winner, N.S.A. Contractor Accused of Leak, Was Undone by Trail of Clues
Audit trails showed six people had printed copies, but only one — Ms. Winner — had also used a work computer to exchange emails with The Intercept. A search warrant application said she had found the report by plugging keywords into the N.S.A.’s system that fell outside her normal work duties — and had printed no other files.
Dumb enough that either (a) she wanted to get caught or (b) it's been created to make the Trump administration look competent and tough.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"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.
$DIETY, how I miss the quiet, towering intellectualism and sure, deft, thoughtful competence of the George W. Bush administration.
... 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.
Whether or not material *is* classified is irrelevant - what matters is if it *should* be classified.
If the Government conducted oh let's say involuntary medical trials on blacks, and classified it, would you then say - hey, it's classified, how DARE you release it, all Governments MUST have classified information to function?
Of course not.
Your comment about Snowden being in Russia is staggeringly inappropriate. He is there because he has nowhere else to go, and that's because the USA cancelled his passport - because he released information of their appalling behaviour.
The action - mass survellience (and until Snowden came along, secret mass survillience) - is wrong, because the the vast majority of the people being watched, having their privacy violated, have done and will never do anything wrong. It is a violation of the principle that everyone two parties do together must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence. It is the same principle which makes involuntary medical experimentation wrong.
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.
I don't know about insane, but certainly not very bright.
If you look at her social media posts, it is clear that she was not emotionally stable and while her views were not particularly extreme, she was very passionate and riled up about even small issues. She should have had her security clearance revoked long ago.
Way too much crap is classified, and because of that, way too many people have clearances.
Disclaimer: I had a "secret" clearance for 15 years.
The drug dealer gets to have a jury, though.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
If you look at her social media posts, it is clear that she was not emotionally stable and while her views were not particularly extreme, she was very passionate and riled up about even small issues. She should have had her security clearance revoked long ago.
I've seen clearances pulled for emotional instability before, but only when sparked by reported alcohol treatment. I don't know the extent that social media plays in determining somebody's fitness for a clearance with the NSA, but I have experience with the DoE.
One thing is certain, it's not an issue for being President.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If you look at her social media posts, it is clear that she was not emotionally stable and while her views were not particularly extreme, she was very passionate and riled up about even small issues. She should have had her security clearance revoked long ago.
Some of that sounds like another Twitter user.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Revoking a clearance for political beliefs is some seriously dangerous ground. Where do you draw the line between someone with "acceptable" political beliefs or not? This is something that could cut both ways. Should someonwho was an active Tea Party/etc member during the Obama administration have had their clearance revoked? What part of anything she had done, up until the point she actually leaked classified information, would you suggest crossed a line?
Unless the political activity itself is somehow actively seditious (like being a Communist during the Cold War, for instance) or otherwise links you to anti-government groups, I don't think you can simply use being politically active and motivated as a clearance determinant. Maybe if the activity itself somehow does, such as if someone was a diehard Wikileaks supporter or such - but certainly not for anything remotely mainstream.
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.
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.
Did he defend his host in any way? No? Then the implied hypocrisy is bullshit. And that's before we get to the fact that he's only in Russia because we canceled his passport before he could leave Russia.
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.
In what way is the country functioning now? Republicans are only interested in helping their party and destroying anyone outside their tribe. We have a president elected despite losing by 3 million votes. We're unable to agree with everyone else and a majority of our citizens that yes, healthcare is something that is important and yes, dumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a bad thing. We don't have a functioning state department and are actively turning on our allies. Did a foreign power decide our election? Dunno, the unelected party is preventing any serious investigation.
The country is being fucked up by powerful people, it has nothing to do Reality.