An appeals district court has ruled that receiving and passing on classified information is a prosecutable offense.
In a momentous expansion of the government’s authority to regulate public disclosure of national security information, a federal court ruled that even private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information.
The ruling (pdf) by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, denied a motion to dismiss the case of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were charged under the Espionage Act with illegally receiving and transmitting classified information.
The decision is a major interpretation of the Espionage Act with implications that extend far beyond this particular case.
The Judge ruled that any First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech involving national defense information can be superseded by national security considerations.
It will shock me if this decision does not end up before the Supreme Court, for the simple reason that this is one of those rare decisions that fundamentally alters how America operates as a country. In the short term this means that investigative reporters like James Risen may now face prosecution for doing their job. Put that together with our government’s mania for overclassification and you have a decision that essentially nullifies the press as a useful check on government power.
The authoritarian Malkinites and LGFers and readers of Glenn Reynolds will of course celebrate. Any check on government power is too much for this new brand of “conservatism.” A minority party is a baleful enemy (of freedom!) that must be destroyed, the courts represent an out-of-control body of black-robed activists and individual critics should probably be shot for the traitors that they are. These are not exaggerations or Drum’s Rule violations but actual opinions by large numbers of high-traffic bloggers and television personalities. A child can see the authoritarian logic that would make true conservatives spin in their graves, or at least cry into their sparkling cider.
Amazingly, the people who will cheer on the trials that end investigative journalism (cries for which have already become deafening) show a poor grasp of basic market principles. Companies have independent boards and auditors for the simple reason that management that operates in total secrecy does its job poorly. Our government works the same way. Think about why the most embarrassing shows of incompetence that our country has seen – managing the Iraq occupation and FEMA’s meltdown in New Orleans – came from the most reflexively-secret branches of the US government, DoD and Homeland Security. Secrecy kills accountability and breeds incompetence.
I appreciate how galling it can be to imagine the enemies of freedom throwing a wine-tasting party when some leaker reveals that the vice president steals cable. The decision won’t be easy for everybody. But if you care about getting served by a government that operates slightly above the level of a Rummy or a Brownie then folks need to swallow a bitter pill and let the sunlight in.
slickdpdx
Fun game. Put “Plame” in the search engine for BJ at the left sidebar and read what Tim wrote then.
Tim F.
Meaning: I’m not a lawyer. Guilty!
Richard 23
slickdpdx has a weird definition of “fun.”
Temple Stark
That’s fucked. Goodbye goverment accountability (and we barely touch on it now, really).
ThymeZone
In case anyone doubts the urgency of grabbing a house of Congress this fall and taking the country back from these lunatics …..
CharleyCarp
You might want to make a correction to your first sentence, inasmuch as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is not an appeals court. Not as the term is colloquially understood, anyways. That would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is where this case will end up, if the defendants get convicted.
SeesThroughIt
Why don’t you just go join al Qaeda, Tim? Clearly, you’re one of them in spirit because you hate America so very, very much.
Tim F.
Jeesh, I think that I might go cry into something myself. Let’s call it a Ferrante American Merlot from my last trip to Ashtabula, OH. Mmmm. Strike ‘cry into’ and replace with ‘cook up a tasty chicken in cream and garlic sauce to go with.’ Night, guys.
Pooh
more good news
Temple Stark
Hmm, when I first commented the post ended one paragraph after the quoted material.
To expand slightly on my point, “regulate public disclosure of… ” can in the wrong hands apply to newspapers, as well. Clearly. Such medias of mass tend to be known as very public disseminators of information.
If I had time I’d write about this. But I’m meeting “Shallow Sternum” in the car-park later. Sssh.
Perry Como
Pooh Says:
Authoritarians need a “them” to demonize. Muslim is the new Jew.
Gary Farber
Linked to you here.
Par R
If accurate, Tim’s post suggests that there may indeed be some hope for this country’s survival in the age of moonbattery, as evidenced by such sterling facilitators of terrorism as…well, many commenters on this site.
srv
Brave New World Order.
Strike the Brave. There’s nothing brave about authoritarianism.
Some Other Brian Guy
Only because they are anti-semitics who hate Israel.
Including, it appears… Par R.
Par R
I think we all know who the real anti-Semites are among the regular crowd here….and YOU, SOBG, are near the top of the list.
KC
I can’t even really respond to this post other than to say Tim, don’t waste your time on this. Dick Cheney, if he’s against anything, is definitely against “sunlight.” And, even though Rumsfeld sponsored the Freedom of Information Act, he’s actively working to see it undone. So, I’d just drop this topic for now.
Ancient Purple
Worst spoof sentence ever.
Some Other Brian Guy
YOU stand against AIPAC! YOU stand against Israel!
DougJ
Freedom of speech is a right we can no longer afford. Would you rather speak freely in Arabic or with governmental restrictions in English? You tell me.
Richard 23
Hmmm, DougJ, hard choice. Engrish perhaps?
Beej
Tim,
I will grant you that there are some disturbing and potentially scary things about the opinion, but after a quick reading of its 68 pages, I don’t think it goes quite as far as the quote you blocked seems to imply. The wall of proof that the government has to scale to override First Amendment concerns is fairly high, especially for a statute that is only slightly altered from its original incarnation in 1911! And I found it very telling that the judge writing the opinion gave Congress a pretty straightforward suggestion that it was time to rewrite this statute to fit the modern world.
slick
“These are not exaggerations or Drum’s Rule violations but actual opinions by large numbers of high-traffic bloggers and television personalities”
This is nonsense, and you have no proof to support your ridiculous assertion.
Plenty of blog commenters are unhinged on both sides of the political spectrum. But not the high-profile bloggers themselves.
You also have a bad habit of ascribing ideas to people who have never suggested what you accuse them of. Whats’ the point of that? Rhetorical masturbation?
RSA
One thing that bothers me about this, given my probably naive understanding of our government, is the conflict of interest. Someone from the executive branch leaks classified information to a non-government recipient. Someone else from the executive branch decides whether it’s worth prosecuting or not, and whom to go after. Hmm. . .who’s an easier target: someone working for my boss several layers up the hierarchy, or an unattached independent? Not a tough decision, especially given that the kind of information most likely to be leaked will put the government in an unfavorable light, and that these days, with a few obvious exceptions, the Justice Department seems to defer if at all possible to the judgment of people who are most likely to be its targets.
DBL
Actually, it’s Kevin Drum’s liberal readers who are hailing this decision, I suppose because it allows the Government’s prosecution against a couple of Jews to go foward.
Tim F.
It takes real chutzpah to deny the obvious. Let’s see, Ann Coulter has said pretty much every one of those things but we already knew that. The rightwing feeding frenzy over prosecuting James Risen should be fresh in everybody’s memory. Remember when Misha from the Rottweiler suggested hanging five SCOTUS justices? What a laugh riot that was. I believe that we’re still waiting for a single prominent rightwinger to disown it. Even congresscritters DeLay and Cornyn got in on the judge-bashing fun. Besides Misha, hanging comes up surprisingly often. Everybody remembers that t-shirt advertised on rightwing blogs (rope. tree. journalist.), and then Dean Esmay and Michael Reagan come to mind.
Anyhow, that was five minutes of Google fun and I didn’t even start on Michelle Malkin. If you think that prominent rightwingers don’t make every one of those statments then you’re simply not a credible commenter.
RSA
But Robert Novak converted to Catholicism some years ago. . .
Tim F.
Drum’s Law violated on Drum’s site! Oh, the irony.
slickdpdx
Whoever Slick is, its not me. I agree with Tim F. that there’s no monopoly on unhinged statements. Although I think “high-profile” bloggers (who blog at length, regularly, and on a wide variety of subjects) are bound to put their foot in their mouth now and again. (I also agree that some are more foot than mouth!)
I don’t think that under most circumstances any blogger has an obligation to “disown” statements made by another blogger. That’s silly. It has always seemed kind of Orwellian to me. Designed to paint non-ofenders with the same tarry brush if they don’t proclaim their innocence of something someone else did. And allows the “disowners” the easy virtue of assuring us of their righteous beliefs.
Incidentally Richard23, while I might have a strange sense of fun, I really do enjoy reading Tim’s posts.
The Other Steve
Too late. The anti-semite card was already played in this hand.
Mike P.
“Amazingly, the people who will cheer on the trials that end investigative journalism (cries for which have already become deafening)”
Well, I enjoy this blog as a daily read. But the statement above was placed right alongside the PJ Media ad on the page asking if Reuters should be investigated. Ironic? Perhaps.
Dustbin Of History
And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the “liberal reader” is the Aryan untermensch commenter that Kevin picked up shortly after Lebanon II: Hezbullah Boogaloo started.
DBL
It’s not just the wackos on Kevin’s site who are hailing this decision. cmdicely, who is far left but very thoughtful and analytical and who never makes ad hominem attacks, thinks the decision is just fine, mostly because she thinks it both reflects well settled law and will never be applied to “journalists.” Note also that cmdicely, although strongly anti-israeli, cannot be called anti-semitic. However, there are plenty of others who are happy to see a couple of AIPAC JOOS go to jail for any reason.