You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #64: Then he shouldn't describe it as "almost criminal" because [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
64. Then he shouldn't describe it as "almost criminal" because
that would make a leak "almost" qualifying - under your interpretation of the case law. However, when you cross the realm into classified information and especially with the military, there are myriad general and specific orders violated and one of the 1st things noted by the court will be any nondisclosure agreement he signed.

Any soldier knows that you have a legitimate complaint - use the chain of command or the IG. There are military provisions for redress of grievance that are protected when you use the chain of command. Further, Public Law 107-174 (May 15, 2002)codified that
protection from retaliation for civil rights and whistle-blowing up the chain, effectively reversing by legislation, any provisions that a disclosure to a federal supervisor isn't protected.

I don't buy that anyone could conceivably consummate a leak with violating something else that is fully enforceable. Someone with that mindset will inevitably violate another provision such as removing classified information from a secure facility - an act not covered by any whistle-blower statute. Improper transmission of classified information and/or intentionally putting it on an electronic system not accredited for that level of information. (The internet is accred for UNCLAS only) Or if you destroy what you removed, congratulations and welcome to improper destruction of classified information and possible obstruction of justice for destroying evidence of your own wrongdoing.


If you think otherwise, here's recent history: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"Former NSA official allegedly leaked material to media" (Washington Post 16 April 2010)

"Thomas A. Drake, 52, has not been accused of sharing the most sensitive of the NSA's secrets: the means it uses to intercept e-mails and phone calls around the world, or the tools it employs to crack adversaries' codes. Instead, Drake appears to have provided a steady stream of documents and information to a Baltimore Sun reporter whose work exposed NSA system failures and mismanaged programs."

"Drake faces 10 felony charges, each carrying a maximum penalty of five to 20 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC