It's Come To This: Commentators Arguing That The Press Commits A Crime In Exposing NSA Surveillance
from the sad dept
Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President Bush, apparently really hates it when government overreach is exposed. We last mentioned him when he attacked Wikileaks in the aftermath of its publishing of various State Department cables. Now, with the new NSA surveillance scandal, he's back (of course) and taking the lovely position that it's perfectly fine to charge journalists who publish information about NSA surveillance with crimes.Of course, there's also that fancy First Amendment, which Thiessen would prefer to ignore:Greenwald’s crime is violating 18 USC § 798, which makes it a criminal act to publish classified information revealing government cryptography or communications intelligence.
The law is absolutely clear. It states: “Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes , or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It would appear that 18 USC 798 is exactly what is forbidden by the First Amendment. It is a law abridging the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Defenders of Thiessen and the NSA will point out that there are lots of times the courts have said this is okay, but I'm not sure what kind of defense that is, other than nitpicking why the First Amendment is something to ignore. Personally, I think that the First Amendment is fairly important, and worry about any laws that appear to push back on the basic concept of it.
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: first amendment, free speech, journalism, leaks, marc thiessen, nsa, nsa surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
230+ years of unnecessarily complex jurisprudence, 100+ years of the federal reserve pushing 2-3% inflation, 30+ years of this credit bubble coupled with 30+ years of EMTALA... its no wonder that education costs so much, legal fees costs so much, healthcare costs so much and the cost of living costs so much. It's all designed to enslave We The People under an unbreakable chain and make the fruits of our labors solely for the profit of the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We now effectively have a one party system thanks to the lying cheating thieving progressive party.
Say anything against the current administration and you’re a racist or bigot usually both.
They have made voter fraud a spectator sport, arm our enemies (their allies) and are preparing tax us to death…thanks to barrycare…
Or maybe it’s really just the prelude to us all singing kumbaya in front of the bonfire and farting rainbows…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which of course was originally invented by a conservative think tank...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other parts of the problem are the 16th and 17th Amendments passed by those early 20th century "Progressives"
16th concentrates massive amounts of money in one place, the Federal Government. Money leads to power and power leads to corruption.
17th allowed mob rule eliminating the ability of individual states to have a say in how the federal government is run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Big time. Why do you think both Abraham Lincoln and JFK were assassinated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* education costs so much
Actually, more people are more educated than at any other point in history.
* legal fees costs so much
Lawyers were always ridiculously expensive, good ones even more so. But because the university factories keep churning them out in record numbers despite a demonstrated lack of demand, they are actually getting cheaper all the time.
* healthcare costs so much
While it is more than say, the 80s, the amount of things they can do to save and prolong lives and improve quality of life combined with the number of people that have access to health care (which far exceeds the 80s levels), it really isn't THAT bad. And certainly better than 100 years ago, where you would DIE from 90% of the things you go to the doctor for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless you're poor. Then it really is that bad. And if you aren't poor, but aren't rich either, then a single major medical problem will bankrupt you (even if you have insurance).
This is an unconscionable situation in the richest nation in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair...
Only 25% of the United States is the richest nation in the world. I think richer than the rest of the world combined.
The rest of us are no-one to speak of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair...
Good point, but still. The immorality of the health care situation is staggering.
To your point, I recently learned that my own income is in the top 10% of the income range in the US. This struck me as deeply disturbing because I'm not anything like wealthy. I'm not poor, but I don't get to snort coke off of the asses of strippers or anything, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be fair...
Fortunately if you have good insurance you can see a doctor about your staggering problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traitor Mike
Milk it Traitor Mike....
Traitor Pirate Mike....
Mike the Traitor Pirate Milkman...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traitor Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Traitor Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Traitor Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So wait...
2. Government classifies any data or evidence relating to said crime.
3. Government makes it illegal to leak or even talk about classified information.
4. Government finds itself in the position of being completely unaccountable for anything it does, as to expose their actions to public scrutiny and the possibility of justice one has to first break the law to do so, and even then evidence is forbidden from being presented, as it's 'classified', making any court case against the government impossible.
And the whistleblowers are supposed to be the enemies of the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So wait...
When that is said, the judgement about if a leak is compromising national security is not for politicians or secret services to make. In Denmark we had a case about a special troop writing a book about his missions in Afghanistan. The secret service found the book to involve too specific informations and he lost his contract with publishers. A newspaper published the book and the cases were running for treason. Some right wing politicians were calling for his blood etc.
The end result? Two higher officers of the secret service were fired and sued for fabricating evidence and the court found it to be completely unreasonable to withhold the information... Sure the court was not secret which is why the fabrication of evidence was revealed at all, but that is another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So wait...
I think you hit on a big point right there. If this were not all handled through a court that by default makes everything secret, it would be a better situation. These things should go through regular federal courts where they might get examined with a critical eye rather than rubber stamped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So wait...
Enemies of the country? No.
Enemies of the state? Absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why would anyone ever want to purposefully contravene the Constitution, when it is what your country is built on and what people hold most dear?
why would anyone ever want to bring in a law that makes contravening any part of the Constitution legal?
even more to the point, why is a person(s) who wants to bring in a law that contravenes the Constitution even allowed to try??
sounds a bit sus to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mow is the absolute dictator of my yard on Saturday mornings, so.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: contravening constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So no law has been violated. I do agree that it is a first amm. violation to prosecute the publisher if he did not personally break a law in obtaining the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(If you haven't seen "The Purge" yet, you should. Good movie.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or the Ford Motor Company. As in, what's good for them is good for America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That was GM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_General_Motors#Post-war_growth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what also is pretty clear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why's he so scared of dissenting views? Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big media, big content, big government, one and the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft as a world-dominating conglomerate
Both are failing miserably. Perhaps they jumped the gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does not apply
I don't know that the quoted law (as I read the excerpt above) is relevant in this case. (Mind, I have not read the details of what has been revealed, but, I have not seen mention of the following qualifying criteria)
that it had anything to do with item (1) or (2) cryptography or devices used,it was touched on by (3) - communication activity of US or foreign govt, but that's ANY news story.. and it also did not qualify under item (4)method used to obtain the information.
Mind, this is from a layman, not a lawyer, but this event really doesn't seem prosecutable under this law, as only 1 of 3 criteria are met.
And then there's the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This! http://v.gd/3K4FAn
So scared of the truth! It's totally awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I read some of your drivel, and you were wrong.
I'm not from the US and IANAL... But the reason you disagree is that you clearly have your own interpretation of the law... and it is wrong.
Your BS article is all about Kim Dotcom, who at this point has not been served with anything, and almost certainly had nothing to do with any piracy, other than providing the platform on which piracy was performed.
Your argument is about as logical as charging MS or Apple with conspiricy to comit ect. for allowing their OS to connect to the site, or indeed the internet at all.
You don't have to like pirates to see that the law is being played fast and loose for the benefit of hollywood.
The same Safe Harbour exceptions that these AGs want to remove, are the ones that basically mean the case against Kim Dotcom is fairly bogus. You may disagree with the existing safe harbour laws, but at the end of the day it is the current law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace
and the fact that the US government was as penetrated by communists as the UK government was with the Cambridge Five.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Humans are too stupid for democracy
Thomas Jefferson was similarly concerned that the common people are just not smart enough to govern by popular opinion. His arguments were that the laity were just generally dimwitted. Nowadays we recognize that we are prone to certain automatic notions (such as only people who look and smell like themselves should be regarded), and that most of us can't be bothered to apply some critical scrutiny (or even mere empathy) to an issue before we decide on policy.
The hope of our founding fathers was the notion that we'd at least be able to elect someone wiser than ourselves to represent us, but given that people voted against Obama because he is a Kenyan Muslim (and not because, say, he lied about increasing transparency of the current administration) that hope is pretty much lost.
All empires fail sooner or later. Two-and-a-half centuries will be a short run if ours turns sour so quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tr.im/44w44
Why is mike such a hardcore censor? I thought he hated censors??
Hmm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can bet that Mike will be working extra hard to censor it.
why is he so scared of criticism? why is he working so hard to censor me??
You decide.
stay tuned!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344098/NSA-hearing-Tell-boss-I-owe-friggin-beer-Hot-mi c-catches-NSA-boss-praising-FBI-chiefs-supportive-testimony-surveillance-programs.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POLL: released today by ABC News / Washington Post
“Most Back NSA Surveillance Efforts – But Also Seek Congressional Hearings”, by Gary Langer, ABC News, June 19, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thus the published information is for the interest of the United States, not against, as recorded by the Constitution (We the People).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]