Posted on 10/01/2019 10:15:13 PM PDT by ransomnote
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A contractor accused of leaking classified information engaged in "thievery, not protected speech," and has no First Amendment grounds to challenge his Espionage Act prosecutions, the Justice Department said in an Alexandria federal court filing.
Former intelligence analyst Daniel Hale shared National Security Agency details of drone warfare with the website The Intercept, according to an indictment filed in May. His defense attorneys argued last month that the law was designed to deal with spies, not leakers, and that the prosecution runs afoul of the First Amendment by chilling newsgathering and implicating the reporter who received the information.
It's an argument that probably will resurface if Julian Assange, facing prosecution in the same courthouse for publishing classified information, is ever extradited. The government rarely prosecuted leakers until President Barack Obama's tenure, and the Trump administration is the first president to prosecute the publisher of classified information along with the leaker.
Prosecutors pushed back in their own motion Monday, saying Hale signed nondisclosure agreements that made the law clear.
"Hale expressly waived in writing his right to disclose the national security information he obtained while in his government position," Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Berrang wrote.
MORE AT LINK
Spies give classified information to a single foreign country.
Leakers give classified information to all of the foreign countries.
I don’t see much of a distinction.
The reporter and publisher are accessories to the crime if they knowingly publish classified information.
we know a few more leakers that need a drubbing
p
Can this line of thought be applied to Hil LIAR y? We know she put highly classified data on an unprotected server that was hacked.
Sounds like leakers are worse than spies.
Apply this to the ‘whistleblower’ a-hole
The only exception to disclosing classified information being a crime is if the information leaked is essential evidence of a crime committed by the government. Journalists are not a special privileged class of citizens entitled to superior protections above others. Sorry. Innuendos and hearsay do not constitute essential evidence of a crime either.
Yet leaking classified information to hurt Trump they consider patriotic I suppose.
Is it not treason?
bttt
No. When you get a clearance you sign a non disclosure agreement. The penalties for violating it, including fines and imprisonment, are clearly spelled out. When it comes to protecting classified information you voluntarily sign away your free speech rights in that regard. No one has a gun to your head, you can choose not to. No, you will not be granted a clearance nor will you have access to classified information if you do not sign. You’ll have to go find a different job. Cleared personnel also receive periodic refresher training on these restrictions and requirements, typically annually. So he was well aware he was breaking the law, going back on his word. I’d throw the book at him. Maximum penalties.
Wrong tactic by the defense. Should probably go for equal protection based something or other. Hold up Hillary Clinton and her known but unprosecuted violations.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.