No doubt the espionage is being used aggressively to suppress speech. The law itself is arguably unconstitutional although SCOTUS has previously upheld its validity against private citizens. The CIA and USDOJ are rattling sabres that it may be used against investigative reporters who publish secret documents, such as those that reveal the evil acts of our government and/or political leaders. For example, the CIA Director recently implied he would use this law to prosecute Asante.

Espionage act, sorry.

As for Reality Winner, she is a fall guy. The documents she leaked to the intercept contained no evidence or additional proof of Russian meddling. This was a CIA operation. We're supposed to fall for their narrative, which is bull crap. Winner is a patsy that they hired knowing she would be set up.

It could have contained a recipe for lemonade, if it was classified top secret she broke the law by divulging it. She's no patsy, she's a misguided idiot.

@Santa - the point of the first amendment is that a successful democracy relies on an informed populance, you can't allow the state to repress freedom of speech (of the press, and thus individuals) or that informed populance can be mislead. Breaking a contract is perfectly valid - for that you can take civil charges against a person, you can take them to court for loses incured due to the contractual breach. You can bankrupt the person. But you can't deprive them of their freedom of speech or of their freedom of movement.

This use of the espionage act to threaten other potential sources is a means to prevent people leaking info to the press.

It is essentially treating leaking government information to the press like someone stealing information and giving it to the enemy. If the state (Department of Justice in this case) is treating the free press as the enemy, then you have an example of abridging freedom of speech.

It *may* be legal, it *may* be found to be unconstitutional, that could depend on who has better lawyers or more money. Those are legal arguements to decide who wins. But the fact is the state doesn't want people to be informed about an issue which directly affects the quality of their democracy.

Whether the actions of the state are found to be legal and constitutional or not, they are still acting against the spirit of the first amendment.

I did not make any claims that i was a legal expert, so really all i can talk about is the spirit of the law (which probably holds little weight in court).

@eturnage - i don't know what the CIA or Russians actually did, it doesn't change thefact that the DoJ are taking action against her.

I hope the definition of espionage and providing aid to an enemy is sufficiently specific to clear her of espionage charges (regardless of whether she loses her job for breach of contract).

Nope, classified information does not fall under freedom of speech. It shouldn't, and it is illegal to disclose such information. Reality Winner knew this and broke the law anyway. Enjoy prison.

What justifications they use to claim something should be considered a national security issue - and thus not the purview of the public for democratic debate - isn't something i had considered. Only that the decision to not inform the public linites their ability to engage in the democratic process.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2010/12/the_hidden_history_of_the_espionage_act.html

Nice article (from 2010) about the history of the espionage act and why this is not the intended use. ie supporting my arguement that this is an example of the DoJ overstepping it's mandate and trying to stiffle democratic freedoms (the spirit of which is expressed clearly in the first amendment - where it is *state* repression of freedom of expression - as oppose to *private* censorship, which is what you would find on the webdip forums - a private entity).

@Santa, you may well be right that the DoJ will win this case. But the legal arguement could go to whoever has the most money - thus the state using its power and money to be more effective at repressing free speech IS still directly contrary to the intention of the first amendment.

That much is clear. Of course there is nothing stopping people from funding Winner's defence - and in effect countering the power of the state with the power of the people.

Classification is utterly arbitrary and this use for going after whistleblowers rather than spies falls way outside the intent of the act. Thanks Obama for your contribution to our turnkey totalitarian state! The fact that the president has an arbitrary and uncheckable power is deeply problematic. At minimum, she ought to be able to raise a defense that the document was improperly classified not for any national security reason but to save the President embarrassment. That isn't a valid reason for classification.

Otherwise, Trump could literally order everything down to employees lunch receipts classified and then do all kinds of illegal shit and throw anyone who complains in jail. Very Putinesque. At least he hasn't claimed the power of arbitrary execution of citizens extends into the US, yet.

But Americans, as usual, have zero clue how democracy works and aren't really all that attached to either freedom or democracy in any event so they're asleep at the switch. No doubt Jefferson would be appallled by our lack of eternal vigilance.

Corporations classify information arbitrarily too. cc every document to the legal department and it becomes lawyer-client privilege information that is protected from release. Restricting the flow of information is a long standing tradition for gaining control.

My god guys. you're attacking the concept of classified material? ok. to protect freedom of speech:

why would we care if someone released the nuclear launch codes?

why would we care if someone released the names of undercover agents?

why would we care if someone released the precise information and movement plans of soldiers in the middle east?


if you feel the information is necessary to leak to the public, then you can consult with legal representatives and try to find a way to dot his properly. if you think they're hiding information, you can eat the whistleblower's act. my cousin actually did this with the Defense Contract Audit Agency in 2015: FOLLOWING THE LAW.

this woman had NO regard for the law, she had a vendetta against Trump, folded up classified documents and gave them to the press. she had ZERO respect for the law, and made NO attempt to go through proper channels. this wasn't some last ditch effort by a desperate employee seeing no other way out but betraying the country she loves: so stop making it out to be that.

she leaked a report about Russia trying to hack the election that actually in the end suggested a FAILURE by Russia to do so. this is ultimately pathetic, and her absolute, dismissive nature of the importance of classified material means i won't be losing a second of sleep with her in jail.

"if you feel the information is necessary to leak to the public, then you can consult with legal representatives and try to find a way to dot his properly. if you think they're hiding information, you can eat the whistleblower's act. my cousin actually did this with the Defense Contract Audit Agency in 2015: FOLLOWING THE LAW."

You realise the state is the ones who make the law? So they will not write any laws which allow people leak things if those things would threaten the power of the government.

Why do you think the first amendment exists? if not to limit the ability of the government to suppress the people. So of course, just following the law will be perfectly fine.

You can't bring things to the attention of the DoJ if you think they have been mis-classified - because the state controls the DoJ, the courts might be an option, if you had a system in place for allowing courts to examine government documents and determine whether they are in the public interest to release...

but you need a law in place to give the courts that power, and the government is not going to pass such a law (if it can get away with it) as it would cripple them.

@"
this woman had NO regard for the law, she had a vendetta against Trump, folded up classified documents and gave them to the press. she had ZERO respect for the law, and made NO attempt to go through proper channels. this wasn't some last ditch effort by a desperate employee seeing no other way out but betraying the country she loves"

According to the federal government, yeah, but she's not betraying the people of their interests. She is advocating for protecting the people FROM the law.

Just because something is law does not make it moral. I'm sure you are aware that it is possible for the Federal government to do something which betrays the people. You're smart enough to realise that, right?

Maybe like the Republican's federal shutdown, which stopped pay to all government employees, except congressmen?? Is that moral somehow? is that in anyone's interest? Legal? probably, i mean they get to make the laws, so it is probably legal...

@"this woman had NO regard for the law, she had a vendetta against Trump, folded up classified documents and gave them to the press. "

And hopefully the press didn't just publish names of undercover agents, risking their lives... or maybe those undercover agents were actually engaged in undermining democracy, who knows, because the information is kept from the public.

Seriously, if they have done nothing wrong, the federal government should have nothing to fear, right?

Now i am assuming journalists acted responsibly once they got the data, but that presumes some institutional integrity... Maybe she did leak something which could have caused the death of a US soldier. But that's not what she is being charged with. In fact, nobody has been shown to have done so, Snowden and Manning are the most famous cases, and the federal government has never been shown to have caused a single death. So this whole 'it might put someone's life in danger' is a bullshit strawman. Walking down the street puts your life in danger... every single day. But looking at it like that is not healthy.

@orathaic

"You realise the state is the ones who make the law? So they will not write any laws which allow people leak things if those things would threaten the power of the government."

how.. libertarian of you ;) but we do have the whistleblower's act fyi.


"Why do you think the first amendment exists? if not to limit the ability of the government to suppress the people. So of course, just following the law will be perfectly fine.

You can't bring things to the attention of the DoJ if you think they have been mis-classified - because the state controls the DoJ, the courts might be an option, if you had a system in place for allowing courts to examine government documents and determine whether they are in the public interest to release...

but you need a law in place to give the courts that power, and the government is not going to pass such a law (if it can get away with it) as it would cripple them."

what? look up the Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1989. she COULD have done this properly


"According to the federal government, yeah, but she's not betraying the people of their interests. She is advocating for protecting the people FROM the law.

Just because something is law does not make it moral. I'm sure you are aware that it is possible for the Federal government to do something which betrays the people. You're smart enough to realise that, right?"

yes i know, but now let's look at specifics: she stole a report that was theorizing about russian attempts of hacking, and released it to the press. what if the NSA were trying to keep how much they knew about Russia undercover, so that they could try to extract information from Russians. this is a MASSIVE breach of protocol, that she ignored. this leak could be causing great problems for our national defense and we don't even know it

furthermore, you're acting VERY libertarian again. i know the law isn't always moral, but in this case her vendetta is clear. her social media account was extremely anti-trump, and she leaked information about Russia and the election, that could stay efforts to prevent Russia from interfering in the future.


"Maybe like the Republican's federal shutdown, which stopped pay to all government employees, except congressmen?? Is that moral somehow? is that in anyone's interest? Legal? probably, i mean they get to make the laws, so it is probably legal..."

*facepalm* how come the Republicans doing it is massively bad, but then when the Democrats threaten it they're doing some sacred duty? i mean honestly, is was JUST LAST MONTH when the Dems threatened that. what's up with that double standard?


"And hopefully the press didn't just publish names of undercover agents, risking their lives... or maybe those undercover agents were actually engaged in undermining democracy, who knows, because the information is kept from the public."

SHE knows. once again, you're being vague, because you're dancing around the specific. she released a report saying that the russians might have tried to hack the election through machines in a certain way. such a report could be used to detect russian operatives, but now since it's PUBLIC they might know we're on to them.


"Seriously, if they have done nothing wrong, the federal government should have nothing to fear, right?"

i know you're trying to be clever, but pause for one second and consider what you just said. you're trying to make a joke about how "the people should have nothing to fear if they did nothing wrong" but apply that to the federal government, but wait. doesn't that mean you're STILL on the wrong side here? i mean were you for Comey coming out and briefing congress EVERY step of the way on Clinton (that btw was what 538 said most likely cost her the election)

or should Comey have stayed quiet? go ahead. contradict yourself.


"Now i am assuming journalists acted responsibly once they got the data, but that presumes some institutional integrity... Maybe she did leak something which could have caused the death of a US soldier. But that's not what she is being charged with. In fact, nobody has been shown to have done so, Snowden and Manning are the most famous cases, and the federal government has never been shown to have caused a single death. So this whole 'it might put someone's life in danger' is a bullshit strawman. Walking down the street puts your life in danger... every single day. But looking at it like that is not healthy."

no it's not a bullshit straw man, the ENTIRE REASON for a classified label, is that public dispersal of the information could cause great harm to national security or people's lives. you say it's "NEVER BEEN SHOWN" to hurt anyone: do you know what the freedom of information act is? we have no idea what kind of damage these things have done. you don't. I don't. none of us do. stop acting so arrogant. i have a brother serving overseas, and i don't like little whiny pricks leaking information for political gain without ANY knowledge of whose life is at stake. there's a proper way to do this, the Whistleblower's Protection Act COULD have been used: BUT SHE DIDN'T

you STILL haven't answered that by the way. why didn't she used the WPA? it's a question you've danced around this entire time.

furthermore, if you're SOOO for free speech why were you against wikileaks leaking the DNC information.

the idea that we're all 100% allowed completely privacy, but the government isn't allowed to keep ANYTHING from us: is idiocy.


and just to keep you honest: why did Reality Winer not use the Whistleblower's Protection act? answer me that before anything else, it's the biggest reason i have no sympathy for her

Allegedly to confirm it was a legitimate document, the intercept reporter Matt Cole allowed the government to view the original document, including medtadata that showed where it was printed. This led the government to the source of the leak.

Coincidentally, Intercept journalist Matt Cole was also involved in the outing of source CIA officer John Kiriakou in connection with CIA torture claims. Former CIA leaker Kirakou was sentenced to 30 months of prison.

i still want to know why the reaction to this has largely ignored the fact she made no attempt to go through the proper legal channels in leaking this information.

they exist, and she chose to ignore them

Actually, on the Snowden and Manning leaks, the DOD concluded that no one had been placed in physical danger from the leaks, FYI.

@"*facepalm* how come the Republicans doing it is massively bad, but then when the Democrats threaten it they're doing some sacred duty?" - equally bad no matter who does it. My filter bubble has just protected me from information about the democrats doing it - because media...

@"no it's not a bullshit straw man, the ENTIRE REASON for a classified label, is that public dispersal of the information could cause great harm to national security or people's lives. you say it's "NEVER BEEN SHOWN" to hurt anyone: do you know what the freedom of information act is? we have no idea what kind of damage these things have done. you don't. I don't. none of us do. stop acting so arrogant. " - em but this has been to court. The DoJ or perhaps military court in Mannings case, failed to show. I'm not saying I did...

All the do is parrot on about the potential costs... never any actual lives lost... so, i'm calling bullshit.

@"you STILL haven't answered that by the way. why didn't she used the WPA? it's a question you've danced around this entire time" - i have no idea.

@" if you're SOOO for free speech why were you against wikileaks leaking the DNC information." - what makes you think i was against the DNC's info being leaked?

The public have a right to know when deciding who they will vote for. Assume for a moment this was done by russians to discredit the democratic party, then that is outside influence, but the US has often been an outside influence on other countries, so why not allow russia interfere (i'm not say i have any evidence it was russia, but even if it was... i didn't complain).

Of course, having your population influenced by russians might be a concern.

@"i still want to know why the reaction to this has largely ignored the fact she made no attempt to go through the proper legal channels in leaking this information.

they exist, and she chose to ignore them"

Maybe she doesn't trust those channels, because they are run by the government. I did suggest a independent judiciary - but even then you see the current system where "Between 1994 and 2010, the court* had ruled for whistleblowers in only three of 203 cases decided on their merits"

*The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

@orathaic

the reason why most whistleblowers are indicted is because they try to use the law to their advantage AFTER releasing the information. if they talk to legal counsel and enact the WPA before leaking the information, i haven't seen anyone be prosecuted for that (yet)

but i may be wrong, and you're 100% correct that the government has too much power

#LibertarianParty2020

also sorry if my comments address "the left" more than just you specifically. i have multiple conversations like these going on with friends all the time, and it's very hard to keep my train of thought entirely linear

LEt's be fair, i agree that government power must be checked. And i do have anarchist tendencies, and they do sound like some things libertarians would say. But I clearly lean more toward some form of communitarian or syndicalist form of anarchy, definitely not a free markety libertarian form.

if people practiced TRUE marxism, i'd prefer that over must forms of government. it's essentially libertarianism, that values goods in such a way inflation cannot be massively affected by demand, and promotes so much charity.

my problems with marxism is that i don't believe self interest are entirely bad things, and there are places in society for such things. i also believe that not addressing differences in demand has severe economic consequences

If a market exists, there is nothing the government can do to change it. Government actions will only create distortions in the existing market. Example: prohibiting the consumption of alcohol created a black market that allowed organized criminal syndicates, increasingly violent, to flourish in the 1920s. Prices escalated. The market continued notwithstanding.

On the other hand, if the government did not try to prohibit the sale of alcohol at the force of men with guns, then human beings would peaceably trade. Violence and graft of government law enforcement would not escalate and society would flourish. Human beings have an innate need for community. Violent and antisocial actors, corruption, and tainted product (bathtub gin), in the market would be disfavored and the market would minimize them. The government is the cause of death, violence, and fraudulent product not the market.

God, how absurdly naive. If markets don't have government oversight, then they become shot through with fraud and market manipulation (see, e.g., mortgage backed securities, Enron, etc.) Not to mention that without government intervention, "markets" quickly become monopolies as the big rich players beat the small ones not through better products but by using market power to kill them. (see,e.g., Standard Oil, Microsoft). Unregulated markets become distorted markets in a hurry and it is invariably consumers who lose. Not to mention that corporations will always push costs onto the public whereever possible to raise profits, making society worse off, and rewarding the most unscrupulous actors. Not to mention labor laws, where without government intervention, companies always get the better deal, because they can just hire goons to kill workers who ask for higher wages. Not exactly a free market when "negotiations" are conducted at the end of a gun.

The notion that without government involvement that people would "peaceably trade" ignores, well, pretty much all of human history. I'm sure your model works well for, maybe, penguins? For humans? It's a fucking joke.

Using prohibition as your one example is rather silly, since

Depends on the government, Orthaic. If you've got a functioning democracy, then you're talking about checking the ability of the people to keep themselves from being abused by the powerful, which is invariably how this argument gets used. Funny how it's always people who want to pollute, cheat, or oppress who are worried about "the government" stopping them.

Certainly, there need to be safeguards of civil liberties and civil rights and to prevent abuse, but somehow that's not where this argument typically comes up.

Why are the enterprise zones such as Hong Cong or Singapore, from a historical perspective, the most profitable and wonderful places on the planet? Answer: The least amount of government interference in the market. Check mate.

If you want another example, look at the ACA, a law that drastically increased regulation of healthcare in the USA. Since the ACA, otherwise known as ObamaCare was enacted, the US life expectancy rate has decreased for the first time since 1993. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm I realize there is an issue with cause and effect, but my assertion is at least backed up by actual data while yours is based upon hysterical claims without any historical evidence of truth.

I commend you to reading Thomas J. DiLorenzo who wrote The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality.

Actually, the powerful and influential are the primary beneficiares of government regulation. They have the ability to influence political actors and can afford the increased bureaucratic expenses imposed by heavy regulations. Thus, your regulatory state actually drives out entrepreneurship and helps the very people you claim run rampant in an system of anarchy.

The USA financial system is not a free market. The government controls and regulates the banks. The Federal Reserve is a price fixing organization. The government grants dispensation to banks through fractional reserve systems. The regulators are captured by the largest monopolies. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of the benefits of a heavily regulated sector. It led directly to the financial collapse. So your idea is to double down and increase regulation when the regulation and regulators were the cause of the crash. Hmmm. Who is naive?

Dearest eturnage, you are 1 off topic, and 2 dissembling regarding regulation of markets and being illogical.
The last GFC was enabled by inadequate and corrupted financial regulatory codes primarily in the USA.
Inadequate, innefective & corrupted regulations and laws that fail are NOT a validation of the "no regulation and laws is best" fantasy.
Instead, they are clear evidence that adequate, effective and sensible regulations and laws are required.

And eturnage, there are examples of Nations that had better financial regulations and laws that resulted in the outcomes their nations experienced in that last GFC ( Lehmann Brothers collapse etc) Eg Australia.. None of our banks went under, our unemployment rate didn't significantly increase, our economy kept growing. Compare that to Iceland's experience.

So answering your question, eturnage, "who is being naive ?" ...It's YOU, either that or you are deliberately being dishonest/ ideologically blinkered and motivated, or, you are just stupid. Take your pick.

The US economy has never recovered. Even the unemployment rates you cite, which are government manipulated statistics, reveal that full time jobs in the US economy never returned. If you take any time to look, you will find that most of the job growth is in service sector part time jobs. People are working two jobs now to make ends meet. I'm definitely not naive enough to believe the government tripe about the so called recovery. Our economy is terrible. You cannot put lipstick on a pig.

As for RW, she is the patsy in a CIA operation to fuel the false narrative that the Russians hacked the election.

I will wait while you provide an example of an economy that improved by increasing government regulation. I've provided two examples in Singapore and Hong Cong.

The last refuge of a man who has no argument is insults.

Just for fun, I'll provide an anolgy. Portugal. Strict drug laws. Highly regulated by government. Passes log completely deregulating and unraveling the drug war laws. The regulators whined it would be disaster. Instead, addiction dropped and the society flourished. The same thing happens with economic regulations. The dire consequences you fear will happen, nigh, that you believe will happen, don't. You just need to try it.

And one of the ploys of a chap caught out is to misrepresent his critics. I've never claimed that continually increasing laws and regulations of itself produces benefits. Which is how you have misrepresented me.
I simply recognise that there has to be appropriate, sensible and effective laws and regulations.
And to clarify, a lack of appropriate, effective regulations and laws does not "cause" a GFC. Human greed and selfishness is the cause. Poor, innefective laws and regulations allow/enable such crisis to occur, but they are not the cause.
Tobacco companies would just love to be able to distribute free "sample packs" of cigarettes to minors (children) and unless prevented by law, would do so. ...So are laws prohibiting such activities an "unnecessary burden for business" or a sensible way to protect children who cannot make "properly informed decisions" ?

Bon bons anyone? I made them myself.

Human greed is what makes the free market work. People will not buy inferior products or poor service. The best prices, quality, and service is rewarded with customers. Government regulations, on the other hand, tend to benefit the monopolists and depresses entrepreneurship by restricting the market or helping the wealthy, who have hooks into the regulators and government. Yes, human greed again works to favor a regulated market. The more regulated the better. Thus, the wealthy and elite continue to bleed us dry.

The GFC was caused by the United States Federal Reserve in complicity with the central banks of Europe and elsewhere.

@"Depends on the government, Orthaic. If you've got a functioning democracy, then you're talking about checking the ability of the people to keep themselves from being abused by the powerful..."

Ideally yes. But government often represents the powerful, not the interests of the majority. You assume that i see a 'functioning democracy' - i'm not complaining about ideal democratic socities choosing the limit the power of the wealthy, which i think is clear when i support things like universal health care, or whistle blowers like In this thread, i am not using the arguement that you claim most do.

I believe protection of whistle blowers is important for a 'proper democracy' ie you can't have democratic accountability if the public don't have access to information regarding the actions of their government...

Though i suspect we're mostly on the same side here.

And you're right that a wealthy/powerful elite could jump on board this arguement to promote their own adgenda. I believe the closest histroical similarity is the take over of the NRA in the 60s/70s (i forget which) by what amounts to lobbiests for the arms industry; turning them against gun controls - where before they promoted safe gun usage and regulation of gun use, presumably to keep people safe, and avoid having any kind of anti-gun movement trying to take away their guns...

Representing people, compared with representing the arms industry is a very different thing, and how the NRA influenced government policy...

More on this case: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/21/justice-departments-demand-for-extreme-secrecy-in-reality-winner-trial-contested-by-defense/

Thanks for that. I can see what the prosecutors are trying to do, but it's going to hamstring the defense. One hopes they lose their motions on this point. I must confess I don't know who the judge is.

These are fairly silly objections by the prosecution. They brought the case knowing they'd have to turn over documents relevant to the defense and that Winner would have a chance to review them. Those are the rules. And this business of not citing newspapers when the public' knowledge is an element of the alleged crime is ridiculous. If they didn't want to litigate these issues they'd shouldn't have brought the case.