Ridiculous thought, isn't it? Yet did not the editor, Jill Abramson, publish top secret data from the NSA that had been purloined by Edward Snowden?
So how does that situation differ, in truth, from the editor of WikiLeaks publishing (not highly) classified information purloined by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning?
Perhaps the current editor of the Times, Dean Baquet, should face terrorism charges for publishing classified information leaked by James Comey when he was FBI director.
Surely it wouldn't be difficult to comb the federal code for some trivial violation and slap a "terror" label on it so as to evade the statute of limitations, as was done in the Assange case.
Manning is being held in federal prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury concerning Assange. But can you blame him? Anything he says could be distorted and cause him to face a bogus terrorism charge. The fact that s/he served a commuted prison term for his/her theft of government data provides her partial immunity with respect to some aspects of that case. The problem is that if prosecutors sniff out some illegal activity based on his testimony, they can charge her with a crime if they can plausibly claim they obtained the information by another route. Prosecutors are expected to be honorable. But not all are.
So how does that situation differ, in truth, from the editor of WikiLeaks publishing (not highly) classified information purloined by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning?
Perhaps the current editor of the Times, Dean Baquet, should face terrorism charges for publishing classified information leaked by James Comey when he was FBI director.
Surely it wouldn't be difficult to comb the federal code for some trivial violation and slap a "terror" label on it so as to evade the statute of limitations, as was done in the Assange case.
Manning is being held in federal prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury concerning Assange. But can you blame him? Anything he says could be distorted and cause him to face a bogus terrorism charge. The fact that s/he served a commuted prison term for his/her theft of government data provides her partial immunity with respect to some aspects of that case. The problem is that if prosecutors sniff out some illegal activity based on his testimony, they can charge her with a crime if they can plausibly claim they obtained the information by another route. Prosecutors are expected to be honorable. But not all are.
No comments:
Post a Comment