3 ms·

As far as I understand it there really isn't, at least you could defend yourself that way, but it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement f

As far as I understand it there really isn't, at least you could defend yourself that way, but it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents, which is hard to dispute. I'm not a lawyer so would love to be refuted on this. >Although Snowden’s revelations exposed a disturbing expansion of surveillance powers by the National Security Agency, the Espionage Act does not allow the public interest in the information disclosed to be considered as a defense or in mitigation of penalty, and does not require proof of harm or intent to harm. U.S. law is significantly out of step with other democracies concerning penalties (see Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure of National Security Related Secrets [PDF]) and available defenses (see study of 20 European countries [PDF]). https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/europeans-urge-us-allow-edward-snowden-public-interest-defense https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/europeans-urge-us-a... >Procedurally, prosecution under the Espionage Act is problematic due to the nature of evidence related to national security matters and the elements required to prove unlawful disclosure of classified information. Relevant evidence may be considered classified, and thus concealed from the defendant, making a fair trial inaccessible. As applied to the disclosure of classified information, the Act is problematic because it disregards intent, a typical element required for conviction of many criminal offenses. As such, it does not protect whistleblowers who provide journalists with information in order to expose illegal government actions, rather than to aid foreign countries in injuring the United States. Because national security is at issue, the standard is low. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/crsj-featured-articles/espionage-act-reform-bill/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/crsj-fe...

southerntofu 5y ago
> it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents Well, it's just like for any other "crime". But to my knowledge, there's very few laws and legal systems where having broken the law forces the judge to condemn you (otherwise no judge would be needed!). Here in France, Sarkozy then Macron tried to pass such "peines planchers" (minimum sentences) but so far we've avoided that kind of dystopian catastrophe where nobody's interested in the context and reasons for actions (which is like the opposite of "justice"). In the meantime, you may be found non-guilty of a "crime" you have committed, despite the judge recognizing you have acted against the law. This is a common occurrence in political trials, and whatever our opinions of that is, is a foundational aspect for all "civil disobedience" movements. I am not a lawyer, but i am an activist, and have witnessed many trials including political trials: whatever sentence you receive (or don't) is never directly related to the offense you're accused of, there's a lot of social/political factors coming into play. That's also why a lot of people are condemned on bogus charges despite ample evidence that they were setup by police. For example, it's really common in France for people who were victims of police abuse to be trialed and condemned for "rébellion" and "outrage" (insults to an officer/institution), even when the testimonies of cops directly contradict one another and the only person with wounds at the trial is the person on the stand. To take another example, Zone d'Expression Populaire (ZEP) was initially condemned for criticizing/insulting France's (neo-)colonialism in a song called Fuck France (Nique la France), but they pleaded for their "right to insolence" and were finally acquitted from all charges during the appeal. It can go both ways, the point is whatever sentence you receive is NOT determined by what technically happened and how it technically breaks the law.

southerntofu 5y ago

> it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents Well, it's just like for any other "crime". But to my knowledge, there's very few laws and legal systems where having broken the law forces the judge to condemn you (otherwise no judge would be needed!). Here in France, Sarkozy then Macron tried to pass such "peines planchers" (minimum sentences) but so far we've avoided that kind of dystopian catastrophe where nobody's interested in the context and reasons for actions (which is like the opposite of "justice"). In the meantime, you may be found non-guilty of a "crime" you have committed, despite the judge recognizing you have acted against the law. This is a common occurrence in political trials, and whatever our opinions of that is, is a foundational aspect for all "civil disobedience" movements. I am not a lawyer, but i am an activist, and have witnessed many trials including political trials: whatever sentence you receive (or don't) is never directly related to the offense you're accused of, there's a lot of social/political factors coming into play. That's also why a lot of people are condemned on bogus charges despite ample evidence that they were setup by police. For example, it's really common in France for people who were victims of police abuse to be trialed and condemned for "rébellion" and "outrage" (insults to an officer/institution), even when the testimonies of cops directly contradict one another and the only person with wounds at the trial is the person on the stand. To take another example, Zone d'Expression Populaire (ZEP) was initially condemned for criticizing/insulting France's (neo-)colonialism in a song called Fuck France (Nique la France), but they pleaded for their "right to insolence" and were finally acquitted from all charges during the appeal. It can go both ways, the point is whatever sentence you receive is NOT determined by what technically happened and how it technically breaks the law.