Give Edward Snowden the Same Deal General Petraeus Got for Leaking Info

[bigtree]

93. that's what most people regard as whistleblowing; exposing government wrongdoing

...it wasn't done for profit or some subversive act to undermine or harm US security.

It's gratuitous to cite the government's charges to describe what he did. We can all see that he intended to reveal instances where our government acted illegally or inappropriately. Casting that as 'espionage' and calling Petraeus' actions little more than misguided is elevating his opportunistic dalliance over what was, essentially, a patriotic act by Manning.

Daniel Ellsberg:

... the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing. Legal scholars have strongly argued that the US supreme court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense. The Espionage Act, as applied to whistleblowers, violates the First Amendment, is what they're saying.

We saw this entire scenario play out last summer in the trial of Chelsea Manning. The military judge in that case did not let Manning or her lawyer argue her intent, the lack of damage to the US, overclassification of the cables or the benefits of the leaks ... until she was already found guilty.

Without reform to the Espionage Act that lets a court hear a public interest defense – or a challenge to the appropriateness of government secrecy in each particular case –