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.
He is right. Snowden is not a disinterested party, but he is still right.
"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.
$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.
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.