Yesterday's verdict in the Bradley Manning court martial was a partial victory, but mostly a resounding defeat. Again, the United States government wieldedtheEspionage Act, a law written to stop legit spies in the employ of foreign governments or agents,against a whistleblower working in the best interest of America. <\/p>\n
That this law was used so successfully in the prosecution of a whistleblower is particularly troubling. It sets a dangerous precedent not just for defense employees, but intelligence agents, or anyone who comes into possession of classified documents. The US government, protecting what it believes to be its defense and intelligence interests, once again placed the whistleblower in the same legal arenaas the double agent. In the future, whistleblower cases will only be easier to prosecute. <\/p>\n
With that in mind, we should take a look at the law that streamlines the US government'sprosecution ofwhistleblowers. Call it \"ABrief History of the Espionage Act of 1917.\"With a clearer picture of the act's intent and evolution, perhaps we can start to ask the question of whether,after nearly 100 years, it needs some amending. If the same effort applied to fighting legislation like SOPA andPIPAor in defunding the NSA were used in changing the Espionage Act, there might yet be legal place for the whistleblower in America. <\/p>\n
Origins <\/p>\n
The tale of the Espionage Act really begins in the early 20th century. US legislators, essentially playingcatch-up with other nations that already had anti-espionage laws, began to lobby for such a law. Technically, the USmay have been enjoying apre-WWI Pax Americana, but our military was embroiled in a war in the Philippines. After defeating Spain in the Spanish-American war, we set our sites on thePhilippines, and took the country by force. At home, politicians were crafting an act entitled \"An Act to prevent the disclosure of national defense secrets.\" <\/p>\n
The debate culminated inthe Defense Secrets Act of 1911;which, by today's standards, featured pretty lax punitive measures. Those convicted of trading in defense secrets were to be imprisoned \"not more than ten years.\" Child's play, really. As Europe descended into the chaos of World War I, it seemed vital to some that the US government needed strongeranti-espionage lawsa wider net with more punishment. <\/p>\n
In his December 7, 1915 State of the Union, President Woodrow Wilson delivered the following words: <\/p>\n
\"There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue... <\/p>\n
I urge you to enact such laws at the earliest possible moment and feel that in doing so I am urging you to do nothing less than save the honor and self-respect of the nation. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out. They are not many, but they are infinitely malignant, and the hand of our power should close over them at once. They have formed plots to destroy property, they have entered into conspiracies against the neutrality of the Government, they have sought to pry into every confidential transaction of the Government in order to serve interests alien to our own. It is possible to deal with these things very effectually. I need not suggest the terms in which they may be dealt with.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n