White House Ramps Up Efforts To Criminalize Wikileaks, As Witnesses Refuse To 'Cooperate'
from the this-is-the-new-transparency? dept
We've discussed a few times how, despite all the promises of transparency and protection for whistleblowers from President Obama, the Obama administration has been by far the most aggressive presidential administration in going after leakers and trying to charge them with crimes. So it was little surprise that the feds were putting tremendous pressure on folks like Bradley Manning to admit to a "conspiracy" involving Wikileaks. Manning refused to play along, so now the feds are broadly widening their investigation, issuing all sorts of random subpoenas on people with very, very distant relations to Wikileaks, seeking something (anything!) that can be used to bring charges under the Espionage Act.Meanwhile, many who are being called as witnesses are refusing to participate, and may face jailtime themselves:
But it also highlights a very important potential controversy: the refusal of numerous witnesses to cooperate in any way with this pernicious investigation. One witness who has appeared before the Grand Jury has already refused to answer any questions beyond the most basic biographical ones (name and address), invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to do so, and other witnesses are highly likely to follow suit.This whole thing seems like a massive waste of resources by the Administration, seeking to punish whistleblowers and the press for revealing information that wasn't sensitive, but merely embarrassing.
One option for federal prosecutors when facing a witness who refuses to answer questions on this basis is to offer them immunity, meaning that nothing they say when testifying can be used to prosecute them (they can still be prosecuted, just not with the aid of anything they say while testifying). Such an offer then precludes further invocations of the self-incrimination privilege as a grounds for refusing to answer questions, as it means there is no longer any danger that the witness could incriminate themselves by testifying. In the event the government makes such an offer, the court would almost certainly compel the witness to answer questions. But at least some of those witnesses -- ones who have already been subpoenaed or are likely to be -- intend to refuse to answer questions anyway, risking an almost-certain finding of contempt of court, which typically carries jail terms as a means of forcing testimony.
One witness or potential witness who is considering that form of civil disobedience told me they view the attempt to criminalize WikiLeaks as such a profound assault on basic freedoms, including press freedoms -- one motivated by a desire to conceal government wrongdoing and illegality -- that they would rather be imprisoned than cooperate in any way with those efforts. That is the mindset of true principled heroism, and if it actually comes to that, anyone committed to transparency and preservation of press freedoms should do everything possible to support such persons in any way they can...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: espionage, fifth amendment, first amendment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
>implying politicians(especially liberal ones) aren't the cause of all woe in modern america
>2011
seriously though, who didn't see this coming? besides all the hippie college kids who couldn't see past his skin color when they voted for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just gold. Lots of shiny-shiny gold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freeze total government spending at current levels (Yes I know the president doesn't set the budget, but a promise to veto anything over current levels would be enough).
Provide easy access to all non-secret government information.
Two simple things that would go a loooong way to fixing this crap. No presidential candidate will even dare say it, much less do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A maximum to the number of words in the law, so that whenever they have to make new laws they have to repeal old ones, to make some space.
Ideally they would be required to remove a little more than they add so that over time the number of laws diminish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rotate the testing between all sixth grades randomly. Congress is verbose enough that every one of those classrooms will get a crack at some bill.
Oh, and an added benefit, guess what will happen to sixth grade reading comprehension due to Congressional action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It will go down as they pander to future voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jury
Kind of like the irony of the death penalty: We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
while i am wholly on the side of the resistance... some of the info leaked was most certainly sensitive, classified even. siprnet is not just for the embarrasing stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However what has done most damage to the reputation of the US govt aren't those leaks but the way the US govt has reacted to them. That is what is truly deeply shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A true patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They embarrass themselves on a daily basis. Why would it change now? Obama is a joke, more so than Bush was... and no one thought that possible. Imagine what's next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kind of scary, huh. We're either going to flip or we're going to flop.
Seems to me a quote from B.O. himself should resolve this - his own words about running a "transparent government".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No wonder he's against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What might be going on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you give evidence in front of a judicial panel you are asked a specific question under either oath or affirmation, which basically states "do you hereby state that all answers you shall provide to questions will be the truth as you have witnessed and understood it"
Stating yes to this and then NOT answering questions by evoking the Fifth (which is wholly a USA phenomenon/priviledge) or simply not answering, can make you open to contempt because of the Yes answer to oath/affirmation
In other words to not be contemptuous to the court, answer in the negative to the actual oath/affirmation. Remember a subpoena compels you to hand over physical evidence or your personage (you) for the purpose of questioning after an oath/affirmation is sworn, nothing more.
If the court(or tribunal) does not want a negative question, don't ask the question in the first place. IF this is done we then fall into the realm of duress, harassment, and emotional,psychological, and/or physical (in the case of internment) torture.
It boils down to the actual oath/affirmation. Or do you Americans have a contempt of the court for refusing to actually answer a contractual situation in any other means than in the affirmative?
A lot of law makers will balk at this, mainly because it is an affront to their system we now know, but I ask them to think back to the original common law and its precursors, like the Magna Carta et.al or even your own Bill of Rights and then say why the above is theoretically bogus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can a Lawyer chime in and explain what would happen if someone actually tried this please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That oath says that your answers will be truthful. It does not say that you will provide answers. Big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indeed. Imagine if they invested the resources in stopping piracy instead. We'd bee a pirate free world by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm starting a new tag: #ThirdWorldProblemsInTheFirstWorld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]