| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Fifth Column | |||
| Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules | |||
| 2006-08-11 | |||
| (via Secrecy News blog) In a momentous expansion of the government's authority to regulate public disclosure of national security information, a federal court ruled that even private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information. The ruling by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, denied a motion to dismiss the case of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were charged under the Espionage Act with illegally receiving and transmitting classified information. The decision is a major interpretation of the Espionage Act with implications that extend far beyond this particular case. The Judge ruled that any First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech involving national defense information can be superseded by national security considerations. "Although the question whether the government's interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government [i.e. not holding security clearances] is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense," Judge Ellis wrote.
"The government must... prove that the person alleged to have violated these provisions knew the [restricted] nature of the information, knew that the person with whom they were communicating was not entitled to the information, and knew that such communication was illegal, but proceeded nonetheless." "Finally, with respect only to intangible information [as opposed to documents], the government must prove that the defendant had a reason to believe that the disclosure of the information could harm the United States or aid a foreign nation...." "So construed, the statute is narrowly and sensibly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interest in protecting the national security, and its effect on First Amendment freedoms is neither real nor substantial as judged in relation to this legitimate sweep," Judge Ellis wrote (p. 63). Others will disagree. For example, the classified 2004 report of Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison clearly fit the court's description of national defense information that is closely held by the government. Moreover, its unauthorized disclosure was likely to, and did in fact, harm the United States. And yet that disclosure also served an important national purpose in But under Judge Ellis' new interpretation, those reporters and others who communicated this information to the public could apparently be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.
Technological and other changes over the past century "should suggest to even the most casual observer that the time is ripe for Congress to engage in a thorough review and revision of these provisions to ensure that they reflect both these changes, and contemporary views about the appropriate balance between our nation's security and our citizens' ability to engage in public debate about the United States' conduct in the society of nations."
| |||
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #10 J, I may not know the difference, but I'm sure the prosecutors will be showing you what the difference is, even if you knew already. I believe that is the point. Now if I share that information with someone else, the same prosecutors will be explaining the difference to me in short order. |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-11 11:57 |
| #9 The only proviso I have is that the recipient must know (or reasonably assume) that the material is classified. I worked with classified stuff and unclassified stuff. I can show the latter to y'all. What if I slipped something classified in? Would you necessarily know the difference? I'm not saying that's the case here. Just that it may be the case sometime in the future. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-08-11 10:31 |
| #8 Anybody want the name of my lawyer? He's good, believe me... |
| Posted by: Sandy Berger 2006-08-11 10:03 |
| #7 I protest ! This is an attack on the democrat party. This is politically motivated and the judge should be impeached and removed. Sarc off. It would also be great if a judge ruled that anyone participating in a cover-up be jailed as well. Then, it would be great if we elected a republican with the balls to investigate the Clinton administration. ie. Deaths of Vincent Foster, Ron Brown, the old CIA leader, William something, and all of those witnesses who were run off the road and killed on their way back from church. Not to mention all the suicides of people with a Clinton connection. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-08-11 10:00 |
| #6 I still hope the people who were authorized to have the material, that swore the oath and broke it, are prosecuted, too. And harder. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-08-11 09:32 |
| #5 'Pinch' Sulzberger comes immediately to mind... |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-08-11 07:31 |
| #4 Ok now will someone with balls start arresting people. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-11 02:09 |
| #3 Since we lay-folks have seen the actual language of applicable laws posted here on a few occasions, the only response that comes to my mind is, "Well Fuck Yeah!" It's no "momentous expansion" - that's idiocy. It was there in black and white. Only ruling the Espionage Act and other laws which apply are unconstitutional could blunt the will of the people as expressed in those statutes. I'm "happy" with this "decision", of course, but sheesh. Any two-bit punk can tell you all about receiving stolen goods... |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-08-11 02:08 |
| #2 What hath Valerie Plame wrought? |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-08-11 00:40 |
| #1 Thank God. Rational thought at last. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2006-08-11 00:21 |