Comment by eli | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Regardless of how long ago the law was passed, it intuitively makes sense that it's illegal to publicly disclose national security secrets.

This talk of the history of the Espionage Act feels like a lot of hand waving. You make it sound like the government cherrypicked and misapplied some old law in order to stymie Snowden's defense. I don't believe there ever was (nor ever will be) a scenario where leaking national security documents to the press is protected as whistleblowing. This is not specific to the Espionage Act, I don't think "yes I did it, but it was for the greater good of society" is typically a valid defense argument in any criminal case.

(And it's offtopic but I disagree with your characterization of the Lavabit case. Lavabit wasn't on trial; they were served with a valid wiretap order that was signed by a regular non-secret non-FISA court judge and based on reasonable evidence. That's how it's supposed to work. I wish all national security cases were pursued that way.)

Please see the reference to Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and the associated Supreme Court case where document leaking was protected by whistleblowing. You can also look at the COINTELPRO leaks.

The Espionage Act has been used a total of 8 times, multiple times during the Obama Administration.

(You can disagree but Lavabit had suite that it effectively was not allowed to bring. This is point I made above - Lavabit was trying to mount a legal defense against the destruction of its business in this case; it was not able to.)

The Supreme Court case you refer to was called "New York Times vs US Government" and was a major victory against prior restraint of the press, but it didn't protect Ellsberg.

But I feel we've lost the point. Snowden can't argue that his actions were legal or warranted by the Constitution while he's a fugitive.

This characterization of the Ellsberg case misses its entire context. I'm not sure if you did that purposefully, but perhaps you think there are other reasons why he was acquitted.

I do agree we are off point. Snowden can't argue that his actions were legal or warranted by the Constitution while he's a fugitive. He also can't if he isn't given a fair trial: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9656310

But Eli, we agree. I too am insanely curious to see how this would be handled in court. I don't really have too strong opinions about Snowden himself - mostly I am concerned about the precedent the court case would set up and what it would communicate to other whistleblowers.

What sort of outcome do you want here? Would you like, as a result of the court case:

(A) A precedent whereby whistleblowers who share documents with the press that implicate the government in a scandal widely and bipartisanly disapproved of by the vast majority of American people are forgiven for their crimes on account of public good but where foreign spies who share documents with enemy intelligence can be charged

(B) A precedent whereby whistleblowers who share documents with the press that implicate the government in a scandal widely and bipartisanly disapproved of by the vast majority of American people are treated like foreign spies who share documents with enemy intelligence

[Or maybe you want some other precedent?]

I'm squarely in camp (A). Since law is a man made object, I say we get to making it possible for the legal landscape to allow the first precedent to be possible right away.

This describes the crucible of the Snowden situation perfectly. Very well put. I am also in camp A.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com