[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You remember TommyTheMadArtist?

Joe Rogan on the Belgian Malinois

Democrat New Mexico Governor Admits National Guard Making Progress In High-Crime Albuquerque

Florida banning vaccine mandates

To Prevent Strokes, Take Potassium.

Lawyer for Epstein VICTIMS Shares Details Trump FEARED THE MOST

WW3? French Hospitals Told To Prepare For A "Major Military Engagement" Within Six Months

The Zionist Experiment Is Over

Sen. Tim Kaine: ‘Extremely Troubling’ to Say Natural Rights Are from God

Israel & The Assassination Of The Kennedy Brothers

JEWISH RITUAL MURDER (Documentary)

The Pakistani mayor of Rotherham claims she proud to be British and proud to be Pakistani.

Khe Sanh 1968 How U.S. Marines Faced the Siege in Vietnam

Did Xi's Parade Flip The Script On US Defense Of Taiwan?

Cascade Volcanoes Show Weird Pulse Without Warning – Mount Rainier Showing Signs of Trouble!

Cash Jordan: Chicago Apartments RAIDED... ICE 'Forcibly Evicts' Illegal Squatters at 3AM

We are FINALLY turning the tide on 9/11 - The TRUTH is coming out | Redacted w Clayton Morris

Netanyahu SHAKEN as New Hostage Video DESTROYS IDF Lies!

We are FINALLY turning the tide on 9/11 VIDEO

Shocking Video Shows Ukrainian Refugee Fatally Stabbed On Charlotte Train By Career Criminal

Man Identifies as Cat to Cop

his video made her stop consuming sugar.

Shot And Bothered - Restored Classic Coyote & Road Runner Looney Tunes Cartoon 1966

How to Prove the Holocaust is a Hoax in Under 2 Minutes

..And The Legacy Media Wonders Why Nobody Trusts Them

"The Time For Real Change Is Now!" - Conor McGregor Urges Irish To Lobby Councillors For Presidential Bid

Daniela Cambone: Danger Not Seen in 40+ Years

Tucker Carlson: Whistleblower Exposes the Real Puppet Masters Controlling the State Department

Democrat nominee for NJ Governor, says that she will push an LGBTQ agenda in schools and WILL NOT allow parents to opt out.

Holy SH*T, America's blood supply is tainted with mRNA


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: How whistleblowers are barred from defending themselves in court
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://pando.com/2014/01/22/how-whi ... defending-themselves-in-court/
Published: Jan 27, 2014
Author: DAVID SIROTA
Post Date: 2014-01-27 07:45:34 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 102
Comments: 1

As President Obama publicly dithers about whether to grant whistleblower Edward Snowden clemency, the political class that Snowden’s disclosures so humiliated has coalesced around a single talking point:

We believe he should come back, he should be sent back, and he should have his day in court. – White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice

He ought to stand on his own two feet. He ought to make his case… Come home, make the case that somehow there was a higher purpose here. – U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.)

What Snowden ought to do is come back and stand trial and face the consequences. And he’ll have his ample opportunity to say why he did what he did and all of that. – U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

As pure political demagoguery, this line has been wildly successful. For proof just look at a new Pew poll showing that 56 percent of Americans want Snowden to stand trial. With other polls showing a majority think Snowden is a whistleblower and not a traitor, the Pew survey doesn’t mean most think he is guilty. It just means that most people believe, as the talking point goes, he should make his case in court.

On the surface, this notion is compelling and seems almost hard to argue against. From our civics books to our movies and television programs, American culture teaches us that courts are sacrosanct spaces where each side is permitted to freely argue their case, regardless of their power position in society. The talking point about Snowden seeks to tap into that folklore by conjuring an image of the whistleblower being permitted to make his full case and then be judged on that case by a jury of his peers.

There’s just one problem: As the Government Accountability Project’s Jesselyn Radack notes in a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, whistleblowers like Snowden are barred from making their case in court when they stand trial for violations of the Espionage Act:

The Espionage Act effectively hinders a person from defending himself before a jury in an open court, as past examples show. In the case of Mr. Drake, who disclosed massive fraud, waste and abuse in NSA surveillance programs, the government moved to preclude the word “whistleblowing” from trial…Kiriakou, the first CIA officer to tell the media about waterboarding, could not tell the jury about his lack of intent…. And Manning’s salutary motive and intent, for revealing the military gunning down innocent civilians in Iraq as if they were playing “Call of Duty,” was ruled inadmissible until sentencing…

The Espionage Act has morphed into a strict liability law, which means the government does not have to show the defendant had a felonious intent. A defendant cannot argue that the information was improperly classified. First Amendment arguments have failed, largely because they would criminalize the journalism made possible by the ‘leaks.’ The motive and intent of the whistleblower are irrelevant. And there is no whistleblower defense, meaning the public value of the material disclosed does not matter at all.

In an Associated Press report about the prospects of trying Snowden, the whistleblower’s lawyer Ben Wizner of the ACLU cited past precedent to describe how the government could use the Espionage Act to effectively muzzle his client:

‘The Justice Department has successfully barred defendants in leaks prosecutions from mounting any kind of public interest defense by using the Espionage Act,’ Wizner said. He said all the government would have to prove is that Snowden took national defense information and gave it to someone who wasn’t allowed to receive it.

‘The government doesn’t have to prove that the disclosures were harmful to the country. The defendant can’t defend himself on basis that documents shouldn’t have been classified … and lower courts have upheld that,’ Wizner said. ‘That’s why Edward Snowden is not taking his chances in a federal court. He wouldn’t be able to explain himself.’

One takeaway from this is that – shocker! – the Washington establishment promoting the “let him make his case in court” is deliberately deceiving the public. Indeed, in its effort to defend the Obama administration and the national security state, that establishment is making a political opportunity out of the fact that most Americans don’t know the Espionage Act limits defendants’ rights.

Another takeaway: polling itself can be deceptive. Yes, Pew found 56 percent of Americans want Snowden to stand trial. But what would that number look like if Americans were asked a question with more detail? Would the same number of Americans support Snowden (or any other whistleblower) being prosecuted under a law that bars him from mounting a full argument in his own defense? Probably not.

Still another takeaway: In its modern application, the Espionage Act is being used not just to prosecute current whistleblowers, but to intimidate potential future ones. Every individual in the national security apparatus who witnesses waste, fraud, abuse and crimes sees the Obama administration’s high-profile use of the act and now knows that if they blow the whistle, they will not be able to exonerate themselves by pleading a public-interest case in court. Talk about a chilling effect.

Finally, there’s what this all says about the whole structure of the Espionage Act itself. As Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, put it in an essay published before Snowden joined his organization’s board:

Every American should be outraged that leakers and whistleblowers are being prosecuted under an espionage statute without ever having to show they meant to harm the U.S. or that any harm actually occurred. Given there are two dozen bills calling for the reform of the NSA in the wake of Snowden’s revelations, there should also be reform of the Espionage Act, so it cannot be used by the government as a sword to protect itself from accountability.

This is not really about Snowden or any other whistleblower. It is about the right to a fair trial. Whether you loathe Snowden or love him should be immaterial to your view of whether the accused should retain such a right.

You can be on the side of the Obama administration, which has made clear it doesn’t believe the accused have such a right (in its extrajudicial assassinations, it has further made clear that it doesn’t believe people deserve to be even formally accused of a crime before they are summarily executed). Or you can stand on the side of the “due process” principles that are supposed to make sure the justice system is as fair to defendants as the dissembling political class claims it is.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0)

He doesn't need a day in court because he didn't break the law.

The NSA is breaking the law depriving US citizens of the 4th amendment. The Entire Oganization needs to be scrapped.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2014-01-27   13:54:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]