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

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.”