The 1917 law was exercised 3 times before 2008. Since then it has been used 6 times.

 

Critics indicate it is being used to punish high profile leakers and wistleblowers, not to protect national security as intended.

 

Daily Kos: Another Whistleblower Indicted Under the Espionage Act

 

Obama Admn. Using Espionage Act Against Whistleblowers | The Moral Liberal

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html

No surprise here.

“I have been following all of these case, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,” Mr. Tapper said. “These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”

 

Disturbing.

Unacceptable.

I agree with one person who said treating whistleblowers like spies is "heavy-handed." It's yet another example of an administration stretching the boundaries in order to justify their desired actions and corresponding results.

 

Ironic that THIS administration files a charge against someone for "ratting" on waterboarding when it was so heartily condemned in 2007.

I do find it ironic that the Daily Kos is now being cited by some and it includes a NYT source as well.

 

I also find it interesting that some/many who rightly condemn the Espionage Act being used against someone for "ratting" out torture are more than likely often the same who said torture is "necessary."

Though this story was picked up and replicated across a lot of right-oriented blogs I used the DK and NYT intentionally. When the 'liberal' rags publish something like this it means the issue is serious enough to not just be considered 'political'.

I do find it ironic that the Daily Kos is now being cited by some and it includes a NYT source as well.

I also find it interesting that some/many who rightly condemn the Espionage Act being used against someone for "ratting" out torture are more than likely often the same who said torture is "necessary."

If it came from a right leaning source, it would have been ignored worse than it already has been on here.

Personally, I think this is worthy of more attention and criticism. I also think some of Obama's other "extra-legal" regimes are worthy of the same, namely the expansion of drone warfare, the heavy-handed provisions under the most recent NDAA, or the treatment of another whistleblower/leaker in Bradley Manning, among others. I'm curious if anyone is going to defend Obama's expansion of executive power under the guise of national security.

Though this story was picked up and replicated across a lot of right-oriented blogs I used the DK and NYT intentionally. When the 'liberal' rags publish something like this it means the issue is serious enough to not just be considered 'political'.

 

I figured that's what you were doing.

If it came from a right leaning source, it would have been ignored worse than it already has been on here.

 

 

Probably correct .

Personally, I think this is worthy of more attention and criticism. I also think some of Obama's other "extra-legal" regimes are worthy of the same, namely the expansion of drone warfare, the heavy-handed provisions under the most recent NDAA, or the treatment of another whistleblower/leaker in Bradley Manning, among others. I'm curious if anyone is going to defend Obama's expansion of executive power under the guise of national security.

 

Are you paralleling the situation to Ben Franklin's quote - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?

 

 

I will bring up another quote - "crossing the Rubicon".

 

When it comes to something like NDAA that basically allows a government to ignore natural and enumerated rights of its own citizens, including taking of life - especially within its own borders - then we have to ask if the Rubicon has been crossed and the if the threat of a modern day equivalent of Cesar marching on Rome is real.

Are you paralleling the situation to Ben Franklin's quote - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."? .

 

For the most part. I think this idea of a never ending war is something that was warned against by our Founders and many others. War is always used as an excuse to erode liberties - this is not an exception and now that it has become something unidentifiable by country it seems ever present. It's almost like any perversion of liberty can be justified by any potential threat.

Are you paralleling the situation to Ben Franklin's quote - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."?

.

 

I say this situation as well as the Bush administration's NSA warrantless wiretapping go along with that quote.

I say this situation as well as the Bush administration's NSA warrantless wiretapping go along with that quote.

 

 

The issue warrentless NSA surveillance is interesting. I guess the new part of of this was that they did it within the borders and considered it acceptable if one party was foreign.

 

Once you move this type activity within the borders it should raise a red flag and concern.

 

 

I had not flagged it at the time because the NSA has always had the mission of recording every transmission going in and out of the country - without warrents.

 

 

The FBI and CIA were criticized for not sharing information after 9/11. But, by design, they worked that way. The CIA was supposedly prohibited from directly sharing 'foreign intelligent' or conducting operations within US borders. I did get concerned after 9/11 when that firewall of what was foreign and domestic clandestine intelligence gathering was not only blurred but torn down completely.