Tag: espionage act

Categories
News Whistleblowing

It’s who you are that matters

We’ve written a lot about how the current US administration has treated unauthorised disclosures of classified information. Whether those disclosures be matters of huge public significance or relatively trivial, the reaction has been to seek to prosecute those responsible under the 1917 Espionage Act.

As is well known, the Obama administration has initiated twice as many Espionage Act prosecutions than all previous US administrations combined. Denied the ability to put forward a public interest defence, Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment and CIA whistleblower John Kirakou is still the only person to have been prosecuted in relation to America’s state sanctioned torture programme. And, as last week’s Pentagon Inspector General’s Office report on the treatment of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake shows, there’s no accountability for the wrongs inflicted on defendants during in Espionage Act investigation.

The emergence of former CIA director and general David Petraeus’ plea deal this week places this suffering into sharp relief. Petraeus shared eight “black books” with his biographer and mistress, containing information that included covert officers’ identities, classified notes and details about US intelligence. By his own admission, the top secret information in those Black Books was more sensitive than anything Chelsea Manning ever disclosed.

Nevertheless, under the terms of his plea bargain, Petraeus will plead guilty to a misdemeanour and serve no more than two year’s probation and a $40,000 fine. He was never indicted under the Espionage act and will not face repurcussions for lying to FBI agents.

As John Kirakou and Marcy Wheeler point out in a recent interview, there’s a glaring inequity here, with sufficient prominence acting as a safeguard against prosecution, even in matters which the US government appears to regard as priorities. More than that, it demonstrates, quite clearly, that Espionage Act prosecutions are explicitly political. As Jesselyn Radack notes in a piece which brings out this dynamic very clearly:

Now that the government has put forth a new model of how to deal appropriately with unauthorized disclosures, I suspect that Snowden would entertain returning to the United States for the kind of plea bargain that Petraeus received.

Too bad that kind of leniency is reserved for generals sharing information with their mistress-biographers — not normal Americans trying to expose government wrongdoing.

Categories
Espionage Act News

Stephen Kim explains what it’s like to be charged under the Espionage Act

“I don’t have any power. I am not a human being. I am the property of the state.”

Stephen Kim is a former State Department official, specalising in nuclear weapons and North Korea, who was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for speaking to Fox News reporter James Rosen. Facing years in prison, Kim ultimately accepted a plea deal with a 13-month sentence, and he’s scheduled for release in June 2015.

The Intercept has published a in-depth report by Peter Maas on Kim’s relationship with Rosen, the US government’s aggressive investigation, and the years of pain he endured before succumbing to a deal. Accompanying Maas’ report is Stephen Maing’s short film, The Surrender, which highlights the human cost of the investigation at Kim, something that sits oddly with the sensitivity of information he allegedly passed on to Rosen.

In his report, Maas sheds light on the extensive nature of the evidence the government obtained on Kim:

The FBI was able to acquire Kim’s phone records, Rosen’s phone records, their emails, security badge records for the State Department building, even records of the precise moments Kim accessed the North Korea intelligence report on his office computer. The assemblage of electronic data showed when and where and for how long Kim and Rosen talked, though not what they talked about.

Despite this information trawl, non-circumstantial evidence against Stephen Kim was scant. As Kim’s lawyer wrote in a brief, The government has not produced any email, text message, or recorded conversation documenting the contents of any communication [on June 11] between Mr. Kim and Mr. Rosen. Nevertheless this circumstantial, metadata-based evidence proved to be enough to secure a conviction. The same was true in the case of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA official convicted of espionage for discussing a US operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear programme. The prosecution in Sterling’s case produced evidence of only 2 minutes and 40 seconds worth of phone calls and one innocuous email.

Stephen Kim’s case shows, yet again, the enormous disparity in resources between government and defendant in Espionage Act cases. As Peter Maas writes, “For a defendant facing indictment, the decision to fight is not just moral or legal. It is also largely financial.” For defendants like Kim, indictment under the Espionage Act means not just losing a livelihood, but the likelihood of having to spend their life savings on legal representation.

As Stephen Maing’s short film shows, the weight of his potential sentenced weighed heavily on Kim. For a career civil servant, it clearly brought about a painful reevaluation of basic assumptions. In the Intercept report, Kim likened his
experience to Aaron Swartz’s:

Kim talked for a while about Swartz, and about the particular psychic strain that has to be endured when you feel the government’s fist brought down on you. ‘I know exactly what happened to him,’ Kim said. ‘They threw the kitchen sink at the boy.’ He talked about his own struggle: ‘The only thing I had to think about was how to survive day to day. What do I have to do every single day to be sane.’

Kim felt destroyed:

‘My reputation is gone,’ he said over dinner at a Japanese restaurant in Reston. ‘I don’t have any power. I am not a human being. I am the property of the state.’

Stephen Kim is one of eight leakers that the Obama Administration has prosecuted with the World War I-era spy law, an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowing, unauthorised leaking, and journalism that’s made government officials afraid to speak to the media.

Categories
Espionage Act Journalism News

Jeffrey Sterling convicted of espionage on circumstantial evidence

In 2003, New York Times journalist James Risen called US government representatives to ask about a covert CIA operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear programme. Eager to root out any information leak that doesn’t present the administration in a positive light, the government began investigating who Risen’s source or sources might be. The Times ultimately killed the story at the government’s request, but Risen published some of it in his 2006 book ‘State of War.’

Risen’s suspected source, Jeffrey Sterling, has now been convicted of nine felonies, including Espionage (see his indictment), for allegedly disclosing classified information. Sterling. a former CIA officer, had his security clearance revoked in 2001 and then was fired in 2002, after he filed an official complaint of racial discrimination.

Sterling’s defence has argued that the government could not even prove that Risen’s source was Sterling, let alone that the alleged disclosure constituted espionage. Much of the controversy surrounding the case centered on whether Risen would be forced to testify against his source or sources. Risen fought the subpoena, with fellow journalists and civil liberties condemning the notion that a reporter should have to give up his sources, but the government won an appeal and compelled him to testify. However, just before the trial commenced, the DOJ reversed course and decided not to call Risen to the stand.

Still, the case proceeded:only the second espionage case to go all the way to trial (the first was US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, now serving 35 years in jail). But the prosecution’s case against Sterling has been entirely circumstantial, as even the judge in his case, Judge Leonie Brinkema, conceded. As Marcy Wheeler writes for ExposeFacts, which has been covering the trial in depth:

The only evidence of phone calls between Sterling and James Risen immediately before Risen went to the CIA with a fully drafted story on the Merlin operation consists of 2 minutes and 40 seconds of calls, total, across 7 phone calls. Then there’s one email in which Sterling sent Risen a link to an unclassified article on Iran posted by CNN.

Two minutes and 40 seconds for what would likely have been a 1000-word story?

The government also failed to convincingly prove that Sterling, if involved, was Risen’s lone source for the information in question: as Wheeler writes, prosecution witness “FBI Agent Ashley Hunt, admitt[ed] she had not even tried to gather evidence from some of the other possible sources for Risen, and had not succeeded for others.”

The jury deliberated for days and initially returned to the judge undecided, but it ultimately convicted Sterling of all nine counts. The sentencing trial is scheduled for 24 April. Sterling could theoretically face more than 100 years in prison, though judges in similar cases usually sentence concurrently — still the potential sentence is many years of jail time.

Sterling’s conviction is another landmark in the Obama Administration’s ongoing, unprecedented, and speech-chilling war on disclosures of information and therefore on the journalism these sources make possible. Government Accountability Project’s Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower lawyer and DOJ whistleblower herself, swiftly condemned the conviction: “I’m frankly appalled that the jury would convict based on a purely circumstantial case,” Radack told Foreign Policy, calling the decision “a new low in the war on whistleblowers.”

As Foreign Policy continues, “While she thought an appeal very likely, Radack said the conviction would both discourage government sources from disclosing important information to journalists and intimidate reporters who might otherwise try to dig up such stories.”

Just after the jury delivered its verdict in Sterling’s case, the Department of Justice issued a press release claiming that whistleblowers can be prosecuted “without interfering with journalists’ abilities to do their jobs.” Nothing can be further from the truth. There is already evidence that the US government’s persecution of truthtellers has already silenced those in government who are otherwise compelled to reveal evidence of abuse and wrongdoing. Guardian journalist Maggie O’Kane said in 2013 that she and her colleagues spent six months trying to speak to soldiers, but that all but one were too afraid to speak out after seeing what happened (from prison abuse to a massive charge sheet) to Chelsea Manning. This chilling effect hinders journalists’ ability to do their jobs and citizens’ ability to hold their governments accountable.

Categories
Courage News News

Press release: Known Unknowns Fund launched to protect alleged sources under investigation

  • New fund will be the first to aid suspected sources before they face charges
  • An alleged source under investigation by the US government has already reached out to Courage for assistance
  • Courage Advisory Board members Daniel Ellsberg and Thomas Drake underline the importance of the new fund
  • Donations can be made online at https://staging.couragefound.org/known-unknowns-fund/#donate

Courage, the international organisation dedicated to the protection of truthtellers, today announces the launch of the Known Unknowns Fund to support suspected sources under investigation. The Fund is the first specifically designed to assist individuals who are alleged to have disclosed information of significant public value but do not yet face formal charges. The name of the fund, a play on former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s notorious defence of inadequate sourcing, acknowledges that many who find themselves in this situation will not be in a position to confirm their identity to the public.

Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower and a member of Courage’s Advisory Board said:

In the US, the administration of injustice against whistleblowers under President Obama serves to intimidate potential truth-tellers by the prospect of ruinous legal costs defending themselves under investigation, even if no indictment follows. The Known Unknowns Fund will benefit not only those who may earn suspicion of telling wrongly-withheld truths; it also serves the public interest in being so informed.

By providing support at the pre-indictment stage, Courage hopes to limit the number of cases that proceed to prosecution. The organisation has already received a request for assistance for an alleged source who is currently under investigation by the US government.

Courage’s Acting Director Sarah Harrison explained:

Courage has decided to launch the Known Unknowns Fund because there is a real and pressing need that no one else is in a position to fulfill. We have already received a request regarding someone who needs our help, as they are under investigation by the US government for being the alleged source of some important stories in the US media regarding botched counter-terrorism programmes. Up to this point, Courage has advocated for whistleblowers the public already knows about and who have been wrongly retaliated against. Alleged sources who haven’t yet been charged are in a different situation and a really difficult one – they are often in desperate need of financial and other support, but requesting it publicly can harm their legal situation. Even speaking about an investigation in public can put an individual at risk of additional prosecution. Courage’s Known Unknowns Fund aims to help those who can’t ask openly. We want to make sure that the public has an opportunity to support and protect alleged sources ahead of time, so they can get legal advice and prepare a legal team before potential charges are brought.

The experience of whistleblowers shows a clear need for this new initiative. NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was charged under the 1917 Espionage Act and faced 35 years in prison. By the time the US government’s case fell apart, Drake had spent several years under investigation and another awaiting trial. At the sentencing hearing Judge Richard D. Bennett said that the conduct of the investigation against Drake had been “unconscionable”, likening the experience to “four years of hell.”

Thomas Drake, who is also a member of the Courage Advisory Board, said:

During my pre-trial criminal proceedings, I was advised by private counsel that my criminal defense prior to public trial would cost at least a million dollars and perhaps as much as three million. I had to prepare a legal defense from my own resources against a government criminal investigation and prosecution which had no such limitations. I went virtually bankrupt, emptied all my liquid assets, took out a second mortgage on my residence and went into severe debt paying for my private attorney over two years. I ended up declared indigent before the Court and represented for criminal defense by public defenders and by attorney Jesselyn Radack, who represented me in the court of pubic opinion as well as whistleblower advocacy and media outreach. She was my voice when I had none. If something like the Known Unknowns Fund had existed before I was indicted, I’d have been in a much better position to defend myself.

Donations to the Known Unknowns Fund can be made at https://staging.couragefound.org/known-unknowns-fund/#donate

___

The following people are available for interview and comment by emailing courage.press@couragefound.org

Daniel Ellsberg, Courage Advisory Board Member and whistleblower
Thomas Drake, Courage Advisory Board Member and whistleblower
Ray McGovern, Courage Advisory Board Member, veteran intelligence analyst and whistleblower champion
Sarah Harrison, Courage Acting Director

Categories
Courage News News

Courage joins ‘Necessary and Appropriate Principles’ week

np-logo-2The Courage Foundation is proud to announce our support and involvement with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Necessary and Proportionate Week of Action, leading up to the first year anniversary of the 13 Necessary and Proportionate Principles, which were first launched at the 24th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 20 September 2013. The full text of the principles is here.

The EFF has a series of articles and campaigns for various subcategories of the week, on secrecy, transparency, public oversight, combating surveillance and whistleblower protections. Join discussion of the week of action on Twitter with the hashtag #privacyisaright

The Courage Foundation is the predominant partner on today’s topic: ‘Integrity of Communications and Systems, Protection on Whistleblowers, Safeguards Against Illegitimate Access and Right to An Effective Remedy,’ advancing the tenet that “strong protection should be afforded to whistleblowers who expose surveillance activities that threaten human rights.” The United States government has cracked down on those who expose wrongdoing more than ever under the Obama Administration, with Chelsea Manning and Jeremy Hammond in prison, Thomas Drake fired and prosecuted under the Espionage Act, and Edward Snowden in Russian asylum, all for revealing important truths in the public interest about what their government does in secret and against our will.

Courage steps in to protect these conscientious people who deserve our support. We fund legal defense teams for truthtellers, keep their cases in the public light, and advocate for the public’s right to know and whistleblower protections generally. Stay tuned for Courage Advisory Board member Sana Saleem’s article: “Why the World Needs More Whistleblowers.”

Categories
News Whistleblowing

Obama: “If you blow the whistle, you should be thanked”

“If you blow the whistle, you should be thanked. You should be protected for doing the right thing. You shouldn’t be ignored and you certainly shouldn’t be punished.”

These were the surprising words of President Obama on 7 August 2014, as he signed a $16 billion bill to improve veterans’ access to medical care. The bill followed a report from the Department for Veterans’ Affairs, which confirmed many of the complaints whistleblowers had been making – waiting lists were indeed being manipulated to hide how long veterans were having to wait for medical appointments.

The White House again praised whistleblowers this week, responding to a letter sent by the Society of Professional Journalists and 37 other journalism and open government groups urging the Obama Administration to be more transparent. The letter from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claims that the Administration has “made important progress” in “protecting whistleblowers” and “disclosing previously classified information.” Earnest cites the 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act as evidence that the Administration has “fought for and won better protections for whistleblowers.”

obama-meme

But the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that the White House claims offers better protections for whistleblowers is limited. While the Act was recognised as a step forward by whistleblower organisations like the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the National Whistleblowers Centre, GAP also recognised its limitations. Blowing the whistle within official channels does not guarantee public disclosure of the information and does little to facilitate what Yochai Benkler has called “accountability leaks… that challenge systemic practices.”

At any rate, it is not the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act for which this Presidency is likely to be remembered but the intelligence whistleblowers who have faced severe reprisals on its watch. The Obama Administration, famously, has initiated eight prosecutions under the Espionage Act –  more uses of the 1917 Act than all previous US presidents combined. Former NSA employees Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden, who blew the whistle on mass surveillance; former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who blew the whistle on US torture and war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan; and former CIA official John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on US torture, are among the intelligence whistleblowers who have been charged with the Espionage Act during Obama’s Administration.

Ray McGovern, a former CIA senior analyst, founder of whistleblower group Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), responded to Obama’s comments saying, “President Obama is giving hypocrisy a bad name.”

SONY DSC

McGovern, who is also a member of Courage’s advisory board, said:

Obama’s record speaks for itself; he has prosecuted more than twice as many whistleblowers – for espionage, no less – than all former presidents combined. As for those whose crimes have been whistle-blown upon, like those who did the torture, Obama continues to call them ‘patriots’. Former CIA operative John Kiriakou, who opposed torture, sits in a Pennsylvania prison because he revealed the name of one of the torturers.

Too bad Kafka is dead.

Categories
Legislation News Whistleblowing

Yochai Benkler outlines public accountability defence for whistleblowers

Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has published ‘A Public Accountability Defence for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers,’ highlighting the value that leaks of national security information bring to American democracy and emphasizing the need for a legally permissible defence for those who bring this information to light. He outlines such a defence for what he calls “accountability leaks”, acknowledging that current law defines the term “whistleblower” too narrowly. If Benkler’s proposed defence were practiced today, Chelsea Manning might have avoided such a harsh prison term, and Edward Snowden might feel safe to return home.

Benkler has previously explained how WikiLeaks, as a legitimate journalistic outlet, helped other media outlets perform a vital check on government in ‘A Free Irresponsible Press: WikiLeaks and the Battle for the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate.’ He expanded on that article while testifying at Chelsea Manning’s trial.

In his new piece, Benkler argues that rather than technological change, a legitimacy crisis has spurred the last decade’s spate of national security leaks documenting systemic abuse:

The post-9/11 War on Terror and its attendant torture, rendition, indefinite detention, civilian collateral damage, and illegal domestic spying created a crisis of conscience for some insiders in the national security establishment. A consideration of the actual cases of
the past decade suggests that it is this loss of legitimacy of decisions that likely underlies the increase in these kinds of systemic leaks.

Although “[c]riminal liability for leaking and publishing classified materials is usually discussed in terms of a conflict between high-level values: security and democracy”, Benkler proposes “that the high-level abstraction obscures the fact that “national security” is, first and foremost, a system of organizations and institutions, subject to all the imperfections and failures of all other organizations.” Therefore, “it would be naïve beyond credulity to believe that the CIA, NSA, FBI, and Pentagon are immune to the failure dynamics that pervade every other large organization.”

Benkler explains how secrecy precludes accountability, rendering whistleblowing essentially inevitable — and necessary to keep massive organizations in check.

Secrecy insulates self-reinforcing internal organizational dynamics from external correction. … Some leaks, however, provide a critical mechanism for piercing the national security system’s echo-chamber, countering self-reinforcing information cascades, groupthink, and cognitive biases that necessarily pervade any closed communications system. It is this type of leak, which exposes and challenges core systemic behaviors, that has increased in this past decade, as it did in the early 1970s. These leaks are primarily driven by conscience, and demand accountability for systemic error, incompetence, or malfeasance. Their critical checking function derives from the fact that conscience is uncorrelated with well-behaved organizational processes. Like an electric fuse, accountability leaks, as we might call them, blow when the internal dynamics of the system reach the breaking point of an individual with knowledge, but without authority. They are therefore hard to predict, and function like surprise inspections that keep a system honest. By doing so, these leaks serve both democracy and security.

Rather than embrace these disclosures as vital and valuable, the government has cracked down harder than ever before on leakers and, to some extent, journalists who publish secret information. Benkler encourages countering this crackdown with a defence that whistleblowers could use in court:

To address this threat, I propose that Congress adopt a new Public Accountability defence as a general criminal defence, on the model of the necessity defence. The defence would be available to individuals who violate a law on the reasonable belief that by doing so they will expose to public scrutiny substantial violations of law or substantial systemic error, incompetence, or malfeasance even where it falls short of formal illegality. It is most important to the leakers themselves, but would also be available to journalists and others who participate in disseminating the leaked information.

He details what this defence would require:

(a) reasonable belief that exposure discloses a substantial violation of law or substantial systemic error, incompetence, or malfeasance,
(b)mitigation to avoid causing imminent, articulable, substantial harm that outweighs the benefit of disclosure, and
(c) communication to a channel likely to result in actual exposure to the public

Perhaps recognizing how the Espionage Act has been interpreted in the US to allow potential for harm to monopolize courtroom debate to the exclusion of discussion of the documents’ value, Benkler notes: “The significance of the disclosed violations is the most important factor, and could dominate the outcome even where other elements, in particular harm mitigation, are weaker.”

Benkler realises that such a defence is just one part of a range of necessary support measures: “full whistleblower protection would require more robust protections to avoid “punishment by process,” most importantly a private right of action against abusive prosecutors and an attenuation of the prosecutors’ qualified immunity.”

In the full article, Benkler explains in more detail how valuable national security leaks are, using bulk data collection since 11 September 2001 as an example. He further details his proposed whistleblower defence, and, finally, recounts 22 instances of leak prosecutions since World War II.

Categories
Legislation News Whistleblowing

British MPs say “whistleblowing is crucial” but fail to protect intelligence whistleblowers

One of the UK’s most important parliamentary committees, the cross-party Public Accounts Committee, published a report on 1 August 2014, that found whistleblowers are a “crucial source of intelligence to help government identify wrongdoing.” While identifying the retaliation that UK government whistleblowers face, the Committee failed to mention one significant category of truthtellers altogether.

The Public Accounts Committee investigation was prompted by a separate report, Making a Whistleblowing Policy Work published by the UK’s National Audit Office in March 2014. Since the Public Accounts Committee scrutinises the efficiency of public spending, their hearing on 24 March and this month’s report focused on whistleblowing in the public sector and extended to discuss private and voluntary sectors where public services are outsourced.

The Committee found that the treatment of whistleblowers is often “shocking” and “appalling” and recommended that legal and counselling services be offered. The report acknowledges the bullying, harassment and victimisation many whistleblowers endure, and recognised that it takes “remarkable courage” for employees to come forward and raise concerns.

Furthermore, the report found there had been a “startling disconnect” between policies within government purporting to encourage whistleblowers and what happens in practice, where victimisation of whistleblowers is rarely punished. The Chair of the Committee, Margaret Hodge MP, noted that in a survey of Ministry of Defence employees, “only 40 per cent of respondents felt they would not suffer reprisals if they raised a concern.”

However, the disconnect between whistleblower protections in theory and reality goes even further than the Public Accounts Committee admits as their report overlooks the specific problems with intelligence whistleblowing. As such, its recommendations do little to protect some the most prominent and threatened whistleblowers today.

What protections do whistleblowers have in the UK?

In the UK, employees may blow the whistle outside the workplace and to a prescribed official body if their employer does not have a whistleblowing procedure; if they feel their employer would cover up their disclosure; if they expect unfair retaliation; or if the employer has not taken action after a disclosure has already been made.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA, 1998) is designed to protect workers from employer retaliation when an employee blows the whistle in the public interest. However, it does not commit employers to respond effectively to whistleblowers’ disclosures and it does not prevent employers from “blacklisting” the whistleblower, harming future employment prospects. Moreover, this Act does not apply to those who are self-employed or volunteers, or to individuals who work under the Official Secrets Act (1989) in the government, military and intelligence communities.

In the UK, the Official Secrets Act protects official information and state secrets from public disclosure. The Act was revised in 1989 to remove whistleblowers’ right to a public interest defence for unauthorised disclosures. That is, any unauthorised disclosure of information is now automatically a punishable criminal act with no defence – even if the information released is deemed to be of significant public value.

In 2002, former MI5 officer and whistleblower, David Shayler, was prosecuted for informing media of the misconduct and several alleged crimes of the security services, including evidence of complicity in an illegal plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, which failed but resulted in the death of innocent civilians. While it was acknowledged in court that Mr Shayler had no viable ‘official’ avenues to pursue his concerns, that his disclosures were made in the public interest and had put no lives at risk, he was found guilty and imprisoned nonetheless.

As a result of the 1989 Act, there are effectively no whistleblowing protections for employees of the UK’s security services. At present, they even lack freedom of speech within parliament. The parliamentary committee charged with oversight of the intelligence services – the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) – exempts witnesses from the ‘absolute privilege’ of being able to give evidence in parliament without incrimination that applies to other parliamentary committees.

“The public interest defence should be reintroduced”

Annie Machon, a former intelligence officer who helped her ex-partner Mr Shayler in blowing the whistle on MI5, and a member of the Courage advisory board, told Courage the report was “welcome, if belated.”

Machon said:

The report doesn’t help whistleblowers who emerge from the military, central government or the intelligence services. These are the very people who are most likely to witness the most heinous state crimes, yet these are also the very people who are automatically criminalised under the draconian terms of the OSA 1989. The Official Secrets Act (1989) in the UK is drafted to stifle whistleblowers rather than protect real secrets.

At the very least the public interest defence should be reintroduced to British secrecy legislation. That is not ideal, as the whistleblower would still have to prove their case in court.

Ideally, there would be a powerful body that such whistleblowers could address their concerns to, in which they had a well-founded expectation that disclosures of criminality would be properly investigated, crimes punished and meaningful reform instituted.”

Categories
Edward Snowden News

Former NSA director says Edward Snowden “blew the whistle” on US spying

Categories
Edward Snowden Journalism Legislation News

Australia’s new law would criminalise Snowden reporting

Australian attorney general George Brandis has introduced an amendment to National Security Bill 2014, which he says will criminalise the removal of intelligence information from an agency but is written so broadly that it can potentially be used to punish journalists for publishing or reporting on intelligence information they discover or receive.

As the Guardian reports, according to the Bill’s explanatory memorandum, it criminalises “disclosures by any person, including participants in an SIO [special intelligence operation], other persons to whom information about an SIO has been communicated in an official capacity, and persons who are the recipients of an unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure”.

This last clause effectively makes journalism — publishing and reporting on secret government documents — a crime.

The new Bill is in line with an ongoing crackdown on whistleblowing and subsequently on the journalism it enables, in the spirit of the US government’s persecution and ongoing investigation of WikiLeaks for publishing Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and State Department cables. In the US trial of Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, military prosecutors avowed that they would have tried Manning the same way had she passed the documents to the New York Times rather than WikiLeaks.

It also recalls the abusively broad language of the 1917 Espionage Act, a conviction of which requires merely “potential” harm — no proof of actual damage caused is needed. As Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg writes, reversing Manning’s 35-year prison sentence and conviction on multiple Espionage Act counts is America’s best shot at ending the government’s use of the law to imprison truthtellers.

The Espionage Act carries a ten-year prison term, and Australia’s new bill does as well, making it a crime to “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.” This language hypes fears of national security damage without any factual backing. Snowden-released documents have been published, excerpted from and reported on for more than a year, and American officials have been unable to point to any tangible harm as a result.

Rather than learn from this lack of damage that these documents needn’t have been classified in the first place, Brandis is moving in the opposite direction, stoking fears in an effort to dissuade whistleblowing and, more broadly, Australian journalism.