Rarely used Espionage Act invoked seven times in five years, more than all presidents combined

[East Coast Pirate]

Meet the Seven Men Obama Considers Enemies of the State

By Elias Groll

Late Friday, the Washington Post revealed that federal prosecutors have charged Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor behind a series of revelations about the agency's intelligence-gathering operations, with espionage.

As a state senator, Barack Obama made a name for himself as a defender of whistleblowers. And during the 2008 campaign he pledged that his administration would protect those who speak out against government abuse, arguing that their "acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled."

But as president, Obama has aggressively prosecuted government officials who have disclosed classified information to the media, and has used the 1917 Espionage Act to pursue leakers more frequently than all previous presidents combined. Snowden, in fact, will be the seventh person indicted under the act during the Obama administration. Here's a quick rundown of the men the Obama White House considers enemies of the state.

Thomas Drake

A former senior official at the NSA, Drake was indicted in 2010 by prosecutors for obstruction of justice and allegedly retaining classified documents for the purpose of providing them to Siobhan Gorman, a reporter at the Baltimore Sun who has since moved to the Wall Street Journal. According to the New Yorker, Drake thought the NSA had erred in choosing a group of outside contractors to develop a data-mining program that had been developed more cheaply and more effectively by William Binney, an analyst at the agency. Drake also believed that the agency had stripped away the privacy protections in the programs. He eventually reached an agreement with prosecutors under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

More: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/22/meet_the_seven_men_obama_considers_enemies_of_the_state

[kentuck]

1. I guess they didn't listen??

"According to the New Yorker, Drake thought the NSA had erred in choosing a group of outside contractors to develop a data-mining program that had been developed more cheaply and more effectively by William Binney, an analyst at the agency. Drake also believed that the agency had stripped away the privacy protections in the programs."

[cantbeserious]

2. And With PRISM Any Of Us Could Be Next

eom

[randome]

3. Snowden is a leaker, not a whistleblower, as pointed out in the article.

Obama has greatly expanded whistleblower protections.

He created the National Declassification Center that is due to issue its report in Dec. of this year.

Every administration has prosecuted leakers.

Obama has prosecuted more leakers than other administrations because...there are more leakers!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[East Coast Pirate]

4. You know this for a fact?

Why would this be?

Obama has prosecuted more leakers than other administrations because...there are more leakers!

[randome]

6. Wow. It's fewer than I thought. Six as of last year. And now Snowden makes seven.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/06/20/record-number-of-leaks-prosecutions-downplayed-by-obama-administration/

Staff members from the White House and Justice Department are claiming, though six whistleblowers or “leakers” have faced prosecution under the Espionage Act, this was not a result of some top-down presidential directive.

Then there is the quote from the OP: "...aggressively prosecuted government officials who have disclosed classified information to the media..."

So I ask what administration has not prosecuted leakers?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TheKentuckian]

5. What is that assessment based on?

Your certain that Obama has had more leaks than say the previous 80 years combined?

Where is this information published? Who compiles it? What else do they track?

[randome]

7. I did not mean in all of history. I meant the off-repeated assertion that Obama is different.

All previous administrations have prosecuted leakers when they leak. The Obama Administration should not be portrayed as 'standing out' simply because they do the same thing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dotymed]

16. As Clinton once said..

"it all depends on your definition of of...."

DU rules prevent me saying what I truly suspect.

[cali]

12. Really? How the hell would YOU know there are more leakers?

Make an extraordinary claim, provide some evidence supporting it.

And forget Snowden- if that's remotely possible- for a moment; what about Thomas Drake?

[randome]

14. Actually, it says that right in the article.

and has used the 1917 Espionage Act to pursue leakers more frequently than all previous presidents combined

You can't pursue more leakers unless there are more leakers, right?

And Drake's charges were dropped (other than a misdemeanor) by this administration. They were originally filed during Bush, Jr's administration.

I don't know why it took until 2010 for the majority of the charges to be dropped but maybe it took that long for the case to wind through the court system.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

18. are you kidding? Just yikes. It says nothing of the sort in the article. duh.

A judgement is made as to who is a leaker.

[randome]

20. So you think they're calling someone a leaker who steals paperclips?

There is a difference between a whistleblower and a leaker.

Unless there is a discussion in the article about the criteria to determine someone a leaker (there is not), there is no basis for the claim that Obama is defining 'leaking' any differently than previous administrations.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

22. you're getting sillier and sillier. Of course, I said nothing of the sort

Many articles have been written about this. Go read some. The article state that the Obama administration is deeming those who wouldn't have been considered leakers in the past, leakers, and targeting them.

I'm done. If you can't argue with facts and feel it necessary to put words in my mouth, it's pointless.

[rusty fender]

28. This poster's whole purpose is to catapult the propaganda

It's his/her duty to lie, distort, distract. Don't engage these catapulters.

[TM99]

25. Of course you can.

You can't pursue more leakers unless there are more leakers, right?

It is simple really. All Obama and this administration has to do is change the meaning of the word. By now calling more individuals who would have been called whistle-blowers in the past, 'leakers', there will be more 'leakers' and there will be fewer 'whistle-blowers'.

For someone who obviously is intelligent and well-read, I am surprised sometimes when I read your posts and the simplistic conclusions that you draw. There is a vast amount of literature on the way that governments, particularly those who are focused on nationalism and keeping a populace in a fear-state, alter and change the meaning of words to suit their agendas.

[randome]

35. And you think these guys are whistleblowers.

1. Drake had his charges dropped. He was a whistleblower, no doubt about it, but he pled guilty to a misdemeanor.
2. Shamai Leibowitz gave wiretapped conversations to a blogger.
3. Stephen Jin-Woo Kim gave a classified intelligence briefing to a reporter.
4. Bradley Manning. Need anyone say more?
5. Jeffrey Sterling revealed secrets about the Iranian nuclear program.
6. John Kiriakou gave classified information to a reporter about another CIA operative.
7. Snowden. Need anyone say more?

I can understand perhaps Kim may not be considered guilty of leaking but we also don't have the full story on that, either.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

31. I am so impressed at how fast you are to get into these threads. And Snowden IS a

Whistle Blower, and we have the documents to prove it. Shameful revelations.

[DeSwiss]

8. Wake. Up. Wake. Up.

- Wake. The. Fuck. Up.

K&R

[center]
link -------------------------------------------------- link[/center]

[Conium]

9. I trust our President.

And I call him President Obama. Consider the alternatives.

[DeSwiss]

10. ....

[hobbit709]

11. That pretty much sums it up.

[mountain grammy]

21. When people buy into this perception, they give up..

Whenever I confront a right winger with facts, the response is always "they're all the same." That is a standard response so Republicans don't look as dangerous as they are.
I'm realistic about my party, and often disappointed, but Democrats are NOT the same as Republicans. When we promote this misconception, more Republicans are elected, and when more Republicans are elected, Democrats think they must become more Republican to get elected.
We become our own worst enemy.

[hobbit709]

24. I see both as extremely dangerous.

When both sides are doing the same thing then there is no real difference. I trust no one using the Patriot Act, be they Republican, Democrat or a BEM.
And the Espionage act has been used to squash dissent before. Ask Eugene V. Debs.

[mountain grammy]

26. Ok, so your answer is distrust them all, not vote

or throw votes away on a third party? I keep supporting liberal candidates with time when I can and often with contributions, and I will always vote, even if the "real liberal" candidate isn't on the ballot. I still have some hope for the future of America and will not give up or give in to the "their all alike" crap. When we give up, we become Republicans. They count on that.

[hobbit709]

27. I didn't say not vote.

but it is becoming increasingly difficult to vote while holding one's nose and carrying a barf bag at the same time.
I trust no one in authority, never have and never will. Lord Acton's statement holds true.

[DeSwiss]

30. Yes, this is correct.

Only someone totally cutoff from reality wouldn't see that this horse is dead. When Obama decided he didn't need the courts and he didn't need Congress and that he alone could insure ''due process'' that he alone could say who should die -- that should have been a signal to most people who are aware of what the Constitution says.

- We have become responsible for this is what we've become. I don't blame Obama. I blame us. Wake. Up.

[treestar]

39. when the hell did Obama decide a thing like that?

Wow you're in a bubble!

[mountain grammy]

40. You know, if I thought President Obama had decided

"that he alone could say who should die," I WOULD blame Obama.

[DeSwiss]

42. I suggest you look into this further then.

- Although I recommend you not go to the WH on a Terror Tuesday. That's the day they decide which American citizen's rights have been forfeited. You know: ''who lives and who dies......''

[bvar22]

46. Then I can see you haven't read the NDAA,

and are unfamiliar with what it contains.

[treestar]

38. +10000000000000000

You have sussed it out.

[RC]

23. The paths are mislabeled.

The signs should read, Right and Farther Right. The really sad part is that this cartoon is depiction of our National elections.
Between the candidates chosen for us to vote for, or against as the case may be, their lying themselves into office, and the dodgy, paperless Touch Screen voting machines, gerrymandering, hanging chads, ballot stuffing, missing ballots, and other shenanigans, we have little say and no control over our government. "We the people..." are little more than window dressing, stage props, to maintain the illusion of Democracy, till it is no longer needed.

A good reading of the Constitution should make anyone question the difference between the words and their meaning, "on that piece of paper" and the actions of our federal government.
The differences keep getting greater and greater.
We are less and less a nation of laws and more and more a nation of policies, where agency administrates reinterpret the laws for their benefit. Even to the point of making up their own rules, which they then use with the force of law, to cover their unconstitutional and illegal actions.
Secret courts, rubber stamps, Star Chambers, wholesale spying... Hundreds of billions of dollars spent to steal and store all of our private communications, using "splitter rooms", for later combing, to silence and/or control people.
Are these the actions of a representative democracy? While some here would tell you they are, they most definitely are not. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[DeSwiss]

32. There is no right, there is no left.

- And any good look at reality and at history would clearly display this for those who aren't asleep.

The Republic has reached its apex and it is time to go further. For those who can. A new paradigm is being written now and nothing you nor I say can stop it.

[center][/center]

[mountain grammy]

44. This is a beautiful quote by the president who would have changed everything,

in my opinion. However, I think he is saying the revolution is inevitable but how it happens and the results are ours to determine. This is where left and right come in.
Anyway, thank you. I don't remember this one and it's brilliant.

[DeSwiss]

45. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

It is WE who will determine the outcome.

- And no one else.

[watoos]

13. Hey, maybe I'm wrong

but this only confirms my suspicions that there has been a concerted effort to weaken Pres. Obama, mission accomplished. Also much of the weakening is being done by Democrats.

[Fuddnik]

17. This confirms my suspicions that there is a concerted effort to weaken our Democracy.

Or what little bit is left of it.

Mission accomplished.

Also, much of the destruction is being done by "Democrats".

[cali]

19. +1 for the truth

and yes, I know that truth is largely subjective, but that's how I see it.

[JoePhilly]

29. Its an attempt to increase distrust in government.

The right wants to shrink the government so that it becomes small enough to drown it in a bath tub.

The left as wanted to increase social programs, grow the social safety net, and even have the government provide universal health care.

The only way to get the left to give up on the social programs is to get them to be as distrustful of the government as the Tea Baggers are.

Once the left is as scared of the government as the right is, mission accomplished.

After all, who would want a tyrannical government in control of their health care?

[treestar]

37. +1

Not a big leap to the government shouldn't have medical information. If it should not have phone company lists then why should it have medical test results?

[Progressive dog]

15. Lots more than seven charged under act

In March 1919 President Wilson, at the suggestion of Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory, pardoned or commuted the sentences of some 200 prisoners convicted under the Espionage Act or the Sedition Act

That's from wikipedia, hundreds more were charged and/or deported under Wilson's presidency. The sedition part was repealed in 1921.
Then 7 persons charged claim is dishonest attempt at exaggeration. It seems to derive from the seven being charged with passing documents and they may be the only seven that provably passed documents. The story wants the reader to believe that only seven were actually charged with espionage, which is a dishonest (to say the least) claim.

[Katashi_itto]

33. Think that says it all.

[struggle4progress]

34. Filed under: shit somebody somewhere started spouting

I did a quick search for cases, involving prosecution under the Espionage Act, that reached the Supreme Court

A list, which is probably incomplete, follows

Note there are many more than seven defendants in these cases

And, of course, only a tiny fraction of all Espionage Act prosecutions have reached the Supreme Court



249 U.S. 47 (1919)
SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES

BAER v. UNITED STATES

249 U.S. 182 (1919)
SUGARMAN v. UNITED STATES

249 U.S. 204 (1919)
FROHWERK v. UNITED STATES

249 U.S. 211 (1919)
DEBS v. UNITED STATES

250 U.S. 583 (1919)
STILSON v. UNITED STATES

SUKYS v. UNITED STATES

250 U.S. 616 (1919)
ABRAMS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

251 U.S. 466 (1920)
SCHAEFER v. UNITED STATES
VOGEL v. UNITED STATES
WERNER v. UNITED STATES
DARKOW v. UNITED STATES
LEMKE v. UNITED STATES

252 U.S. 239 (1920)
PIERCE ET AL v. UNITED STATES

253 U.S. 142 (1920)
O'CONNELL ET AL v. UNITED STATES

255 U.S. 407 (1921)
UNITED STATES EX REL. MILWAUKEE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PUBLISHING COMPANY v. BURLESON

312 U.S. 19 (1941)
GORIN v. UNITED STATES

322 U.S. 680 (1944)
HARTZEL v. UNITED STATES

332 U.S. 708 (1948)
VON MOLTKE v. GILLIES

338 U.S. 521 (1950)
UNITED STATES EX REL. EICHENLAUB v. SHAUGHNESSY

346 U.S. 273 (1953)
ROSENBERG ET AL v. UNITED STATES

[treestar]

36. You're assuming Obama must agree with your definition of whistleblowers vs. leakers

[East Coast Pirate]

41. I didn't write the article.

You'll have to send an email to the author.

[treestar]

43. Well then the writer of the article is assuming his/her definition is something Obama must agree wit

on every case. Obama was OK with whistleblowers and in fact DID give them even more protections. But that doesn't mean he's going to agree that every person who leaks documents, who the writer thinks is golden for it, is a whistleblower. We elected Obama to make this decision (well, only to the extent of whom to accuse - the court system decides whether they are actually guilty or not) - not the writer of that article.

Obama has every right via DOJ to prosecute Snowden for theft of documents and release of classified documents. If the court system acquits him, Obama can do nothing about it.

So even Obama does not get his way on this necessarily. So there is no reason why random poster or article writer gets to decide.

[indepat]

47. An enemy of the State might include any one sworn to protect and defend the Constitution

of the United States, but eschews to enforce principal protections enumerated therein.