Edward Snowden On Trump Administration's Recent Arrest of an Alleged Journalistic Source (freedom.press) 342
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.
A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:2, Informative)
C'mon, Snowden. She leaked because she's insane, not patriotic.
Re:A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [nytimes.com]
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.
Re:A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:5, Funny)
$DIETY, how I miss the quiet, towering intellectualism and sure, deft, thoughtful competence of the George W. Bush administration.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Bush II only fucked up Iraq.
He messed up really bad in Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:3)
Ms. Winner’s apparent Twitter feed, which used a pseudonym but had a photo of her and the same account name as her Instagram feed...
D'oh! The first rule of using a pseudonym...
Re:A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. Social media wasn't brought up when I was evaluated for my "Q" back in 2002 nor did they ask about it during either of my 5-year reviews. I saw no mention of a social media check when I requested my 80+ page background investigation. (They talk to p
Re:A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [twitter.com].
Re:A whole lot of nothing in the leak (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you draw the line between someone with "acceptable" political beliefs or not?
Well, you could start with her actual behavior and words. Having a security clearance in an era where acts of terrorism by and on behalf of entities like Iran, or groups like ISIS actually, you know, kill lots of people and involve us putting a lot of effort into clandestinely trying to stop such things ... means that when someone like her cheers on Iran and its mullahs in social media, or says publicly that being white is an act of terrorism ... that pretty well defines someone whose judgement should not
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So would this be the "shooting the messenger" part of the cycle or the "blame the victim" part? I'm confused....
Neither. I was simply remarking that, if she didn't actually want to get caught, she should have thought it through better - like Snowden did. If she actually did what she did *how* she did it, and didn't expect to get caught, then she's an idiot. In addition to the fact that the NSA maintains search, printer and email logs, almost all color laser printers print their model and serial numbers in micro print on every freaking page.
Re: (Score:2)
I was simply remarking that, if she didn't actually want to get caught, she should have thought it through better - like Snowden did.
If Snowden had really thought things through, he wouldn't be living in Moscow.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think an insanity plea is on the table here.
Ignorant of the consequences, perhaps, but that's no defense.
Re: (Score:3)
She leaked because she's insane, not patriotic.
The problem is that her jury will not get to hear both arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Right (Score:4, Insightful)
He is right. Snowden is not a disinterested party, but he is still right.
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure this qualifies as whistle blowing. It certainly does qualify as violation of her security clearance and there are legal consequences for that. Everyone with a clearance knows this. Everyone that works with people with a clearance knows this.
Serious crusaders have never had any problem facing the consequences of their actions.
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
> Not sure this qualifies as whistle blowing.
And the point of the article was to let a jury decide that.
Why she did it not relevant to guilt ... (Score:2)
> 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.
As long as mens rea is on the books (Score:3, Insightful)
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 irr
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Poor analogy. The legal concept of intent requires knowing the person's motivation to distinguish between these various forms of death. However in the case of this NSA contractor's alleged crime intent only involves whether or not she intentionally gave the information to a journalist.
"Was the killing intentional?" requires info regarding motivation.
"Was the disclosure intentional?" does not require info regarding motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
The Espionage Act prevents the jury from hearing any of the details of the case such was motive or why the defendant might have done it. At that point it's a drumhead trial and you're tossing out that whole fair trial thing.
Re: (Score:3)
But should violating your security clearance cost you the right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers?
When you join military/intelligence agencies ... (Score:2)
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.
Whistle blowing would have been going to Congress (Score:2)
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.
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing that says that whistleblowing has to be legal; in fact in repressive regimes it's always illegal.
Daniel Ellsberg certainly broke the law when he leaked the Pentagon Papers. But he was no traitor -- at least not to the country. Ellsberg was a very senior person who knew exactly what he was doing and measured his actions very precisely to avoid harming US security interests. People were furious when they learned how dishonest their government had been.
Classification is neither here nor there as far as whistleblowing is concerned. The strongest argument against Reality Winner being a whistleblower is that she didn't reveal any US government wrongdoing. She didn't even reveal any wrongdoing by Donald Trump, his campaign, or transition team.
She clearly is no Daniel Ellsberg; she's more like Chelsea Manning, well-meaning but naive and inexperienced. 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.
Overall I have mixed feelings. On one hand what she did has counterintelligence implications. But you have to weigh the value of the public knowing that the Russians really were meddling. There has been an active campaign to paint that as paranoia. It's good that we know, but we can't really be sure what the cost was.
Re:Right (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...and his characterization of the Intercept as a "leading American news outlet". Ha!
but otherwise I believe you are correct. Her actions if accurately reported did not constitute anything that could be justified under whistleblowers by any stretch, and she did clearly violate her security clearance and responsibilities.
At least, unlike Snowden, she didn't in it for self-aggrandizement and more nefarious purposes.
Let's shift context (Score:3)
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.
Re:Let's shift context (Score:5, Insightful)
The drug dealer gets to have a jury, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The drug dealer gets to have a jury, though.
The drug dealer didn't voluntarily sign a contract with the government agreeing to have some rights waived, as people who voluntarily enter the military or intelligence agencies do.
Re: (Score:2)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Just what don't you understand about the word "unalienable"? The government doesn't have the authority to construct a contract that waives your right to fair trial.
Your citation omitted "... that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". A "fair trial", the protection of "Liberty", is generally considered one that presumes innocence and follows a "due process". That "due process" is not necessarily one that involves a jury for example. And the rules and details of that "due process", and also what is or is not a crime, can vary considerably by signing a contract with the US government. For example when you exchange normal civil law when you voluntar
Re: (Score:2)
Winner could have had a jury, too. In each case, the jury would decide whether Winner sold illegal drugs or the drug dealer leaked classified information, and that would determine the verdict. No difference.
Snowden's hypocrisy knows no bounds (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Snowden's hypocrisy knows no bounds (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Please mod parent up. (Score:2)
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not material *is* classified is irrelevant - what matters is if it *should* be classified.
Nonsense. It is not the job of every NSA contractor to make decisions about the classification level of the material they have access to. What you are saying, in effect, is that every person who handles a piece of classified material has the authority to declassify it if they want to. Really? I worked in a government comm center that sometimes handled top secret material. Was I authorized to declassify and disseminate that information if I felt like it was inappropriately classified?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment?
I mean it wasn't exactly classified but the people involved were unaware of their involvement.
Re:Snowden's hypocrisy knows no bounds (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that the Democrats are absolutely doing 100% the same thing.
I"m not sure what your "agree with everyone else" means, I'm assuming you mean "the world" and other countries, which have absolutely NO stake in things here one way or another, and shouldn't. We don't rule ourselv
Good Grief! Hyperbole much? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
The answer for anyone who has read TFA or even the summary is clearly NO.
Snowden is asserting espionage act is not the appropriate venue since it was intended for espionage and prevents defense from arguing mitigating circumstances. Something even defendants in a murder trial are able to do.
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.
Your conclusions are based entirely on a false premise. Snowden openly admits what he did was wrong.
Nah (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Whistleblowing? (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way was the document that Reality Leigh Winner leaked *whistleblowing*...?
It just seems like a cheapening of the term...
This, and more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that is should never have been classified information to begin with, and they should burn her at the stake for releasing it?
Instead of attributing words to me which I never said, why not ask for my opinion? I did not, nor would I have made such a poor argument.
I don't want you to know my detection capabilities any more than a Russian Bank wants you to know theirs! Knowing those capabilities gives attackers information on how they should be attacking. Show me a company that goes out and tells the public every time there is a spear phishing attack against them. You won't find any. In the cases you see a report due to a succes
Re: (Score:2)
A report that states people were spear phished by a foreign government is nearly a daily event for many of us,
This. Oh, so much this.
All the people trying to excuse Winner because she was exposing US government wrongdoing have yet to explain how a document discussing RUSSIAN spear phishing of public election officials is US government wrongdoing. Is it because the Russians allegedly hacked a voting machine company database? Sorry, but the email addresses of many elections officials are publicly available from their own election's department websites. I don't have to hack anything to find out the email address of m
Re:Whistleblowing? Yup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 showe
Re: (Score:2)
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.
In General Agreed, However... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say Snowden is being fair and unbiased here. The way he framed the accusations against her -- "accused of serving as a journalistic source" -- is heavily slanted in her favor. If I were trying to stick to facts and not endorse her actions, I'd describe the charges against her as "disclosing classified information."
Snowden's main point stands -- if the accused has diminished rights because she's accused of crime A instead of crime B, no one can call that "justice" with a straight face.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that conservatism creates the police state right? It is funny how conservatives try to blame liberals for their own deeds.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that conservatism creates the police state right?
Wrong.
*Authoritarianism*, whether the flavor be Leftist or Rightist, creates the police state. There is anarchy and authoritarian tyranny at the two extremes, whether it is capitalist, communist, fascist, or socialist is largely irrelevant, especially to the regime's subjects. It's simply that collectivist ideologies have a 100% historical rate of authoritarianism. This authoritarianism is intrinsic, as collectivists take from those who produce and give it to those who do not.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Slight clarification: obviously, the corollary to this is that things that aren't to do with your political career, like who you sleep with or what kind of porn you buy, should not be politically harmful. Yet at present they are. This is a bug that needs fixed. But it's not a reason to treat whistle-blowing and espionage as equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
If revealing top-secret information can "harm political enemies," isn't that exactly what whistle-blowing is for?
I'm sorry, but that question truly is stupid.
If it does, it's because the person whom it would harm did something wrong.
You have a very limited view of what constitutes harm. Here's a simple example: the leader of the free world (President of the US in case you missed the reference) is in the middle of negotiation with another county on some treaty matter that you happen to oppose. The discussions are secret so that all parties can speak openly and frankly about their concerns. The location of the next round of discussions is secret to protect the safety of the participants. YOU l
Reality Winner a Whistleblower? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Whistleblower? Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ENTIR
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And this is why she is going to get hammered by the system, she embarrassed them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Reality Winner a Whistleblower? (Score:2)
Re: Reality Winner a Whistleblower? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Though it's true that we already knew there were Russian hacking attempts, you're not quite right to imply that nothing important was learned from this leak. We knew that Russian hackers had hacked the both Democrats and Republicans, but only chose to release information on Republicans. However, we've been lead to believe that there wasn't any Russian hacking that could have actually changed votes. The information released indicates that the Russians were actively mounting attacks to change votes, and th
Re: (Score:2)
she's no Eric Snowden.
What does this have to do with a British actor who died in 1979 [wikipedia.org] Or is it a different Eric Snowden?
It's time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that [wikipedia.org].
Leading? (Score:2)
Since when is The Intercept a leading news outlet?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know what leading means? It doesn't mean "most popular." It means "reporting on stories that other outlets aren't yet reporting on."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what leading means? It doesn't mean "most popular." It means "reporting on stories that other outlets aren't yet reporting on."
No, that's NOT what "leading" means in any remotely appropriate context. "Leading" means "widely consumed, ahead of others." It means, "noted for actually be better at something that most others."
But even if we were to accept you out-of-context use of the term, The Intercept is still no such thing. That Russian (and Chinese, and Iranian, and North Korean) hackers send spearfishing emails to people in every industry, including to the businesses that manufacture voting hardware and to the local government
Make Leaking Always Legal? (Score:2)
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.
Citation Needed (Score:2)
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 [uh.edu] 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
Oh gee, no agenda here (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
This statement is also indefensible. "No matter anyone's opinion...we SHOULD all agree". While I agree the process is bad, she definitely should be held without bail. She is VERY likely to say something else stupidly criminal.
Re: edward snowden iis a TRAITOR! (Score:3, Funny)
IIS Traitor? Is he using Apache now?
Well, good for him, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
NginX, but good attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. According to Snowden's logic, a jury should decide on whether this is malicious or whistleblowing for the greater good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Note to Self....remember in case of selection for jury duty next time.
Re: (Score:2)
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? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 prohib
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been seeing what this current administration has been hiring? They are giving out jobs to anyone who will show up at this point and firing anyone who doesn't pledge loyalty to Herr Trump
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue for copyright infringement without registering the copyright. Registering helps, though; for example, you can then sue for statutory rather than actual damages (IIRC - IANAL).