Bradley Manning’s conviction under the Espionage Act is the latest development in the Obama administration’s push to prosecute leaks. We’ve updated our timeline with the most recent events. Despite promises to strengthen protectionsfor whistleblowers, the Obama administration haslaunched an aggressive crackdownon government employees who have leaked national security information to the press. With charges filed against NSA leaker Edward Snowden this June, the administration has brought a total of seven cases under the Espionage Act, which dates from World War I and criminalizes disclosing information “relating to the national defense.” Prior to the current administration, there had beenonly three known casesresulting in indictments in which the Espionage Act was used to prosecute government officials for leaks. The administration has also targeted journalists. In May, it was revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly seized AP reporters’ phone recordswhile investigating a potential CIA leak, and targeteda Fox News reporter as part of a criminal leak case (outlined below). No journalist has been chargedwith a crime. But the news prompted an outcry that Obama’s hard line on leaks could have a"chilling effect"on investigative reporting that depends on inside sources. (In response, the Justice Department issued new guidelines limiting when journalists’ records can be sought.) A spokesman for the Department of Justice told us the government “does not target whistleblowers.”(Read their full statement.) As they point out, government whistleblower protections shield only those who raise their concerns through the proper channels within their agency—not through leaks to the media or other unauthorized persons. Director of National Intelligence James Clappersummed up the government’s approach in a 2010 memo: “people in the intelligence business should be like my grandchildren—seen but not heard.” Here’s a timeline of leak prosecutions under the Espionage Act, showing how they’ve picked up steam under Obama.
Who's Who
What happened
1971: Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo indicted
Two analysts at the RAND Corporation,Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo, were indicted for leaking classifiedinformation about the Vietnam War—what came to be known asThe PentagonPapers. Thecase wasdismissedin 1973 due to government misconduct.
1985: Samuel Morison convicted
Samuel Morison
Civilian analyst
Samuel LoringMorison, a civilian analyst with the Navy, was convicted of leaking classifiedsatellite photographs to a British magazine. Hewas sentencedto 2 yearsin prison, and eventually pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.
August 2005: Lawrence Franklin indicted
Lawrence Franklin
State Department analyst
Franklin, an analyst for the State Department, was charged with leaking classified information about Iran to two lobbyists for AIPAC.
January 2006: Lawrence Franklin convicted
Franklin pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 years inprison, which waslater reducedto ten months’ house arrest. The twolobbyists were also indicted for receiving unauthorized information—ahighly unusual charge—but the case against them was dropped in May of2009.
April 2010: Thomas Drake indicted
NationalSecurity Agency employeeThomas Drakewas charged with violating the Espionage Act for retaining classified documentsfor “unauthorized disclosure.” He was suspected to haveleaked information on the agency’s surveillance program TrailBlazer.The case against Drake began under the Bush administration - FBI agents raidedhis house in 2007.
May 2010: Shamai Leibowitz convicted
Shamai Leibowitz
FBI translator
Leibowitz, a linguist and translator for the FBI,pleaded guiltyto leaking classified informationto a blogger. He was sentenced to 20 months inprison. At the time of his sentencing,not even thejudgeknewexactly what he had leaked, thoughlaterdisclosuresindicatedit was FBI wiretaps of conversations between Israeli diplomats about Iran.
June 2010: Bradley Manning arrested
Bradley Manning
Army intelligence analyst
Bradley Manning, a 22-year Army Private,was arrested after he told someone onlinethat he was the source for Wikileaks’ biggest gets, includinga quarter-million State Department cables.
Itwill be more almost two years before he is ultimately charged in a military court. In February 2013, he pleadedguilty to providing files to Wikileaks, but not toviolating the Espionage Act and other charges. Courts have maintained an unprecedentedlevel of secrecy over the case,withholding documentsandallowing witnesses totestify in secret.
August 2010: Stephen Kim indicted
Stephen Kim
State Department analyst
Kim, an analyst working under contract with the StateDepartment,was indictedfor giving classified informationto Fox News about North Korea. His case is still pending. In a July 2013 rulingin the case, a federal judge said the government didnot need to show that the information leaked could have damaged national security– just that Kim knew it could and willfully leaked the information.
The Washington Post reported in May 2013 that Fox News journalist James Rosen was investigated in theKim case. The Department seized Rosen’s phone records and emails, and tracked his“comings and goings from the State Department.” Rosen was not charged with acrime, but an FBI investigator wrote that there was evidence he was a“co-conspirator.”
December 2010: Jeffrey Sterling indicted
Jeffrey Sterling
CIA officer
Sterling, a CIA officer,was charged with leakinginformationabout the CIA’s efforts against Iran’s nuclear program. Hiscase is still pending.
New York Times reporter James Risenwas ordered to testify in Sterling’s trial. Prosecutors believed Kim hadleaked material to Risen for his book, “State of War.” Risen fought thesubpoena, arguing that it was his First Amendment right to protect his source’sconfidentiality. In July 2013,Risen lostthat fight, when a federal appeals court said there was no “reportersprivilege” that could allow him not to testify.
Jun. 2011: Case against Thomas Drake dropped
Drakepled guilty to a minorcharge, not under the Espionage Act, and served no prison time. Thegovernment had decided that they could not prosecute him without revealingdetails about the documents he supposedly leaked. Critics saw the government’swithdrawal as a sign that they had overreached in using the Espionage Act.
January 2012: John Kiriakou charged
John Kiriakou
former CIA officer
John Kiriakou wascharged with leakinginformationabout the interrogation of an Al Qaeda leader and disclosingthe name of a CIA analyst involved. Kiriakou gave aninterview on ABC News in 2007 detailing the Bush administration’suse ofwaterboardingin interrogating terrorist suspects.
October 2012: John Kiriakou convicted
Kiriakoupleaded guiltyto disclosing the name of acovert CIA officer. He was convicted of violating the Intelligence IdentitiesProtection Act, the first under the law in 27 years. In January, Kiriakouwas sentencedto 2 1/2 years in prison.
June 14, 2013: Edward Snowden Charged
Edward Snowden
Former NSA Contractor
Edward Snowden, who leaked documentsabout the NSA’s secret surveillance programs, was chargedwith theft of government property and two counts of disclosing informationunder the Espionage Act – charges which together carry a penalty of up to30 years in prison.
July 30, 2013: Bradley Manning Convicted
A military tribunal judge foundManning not guilty of aiding the enemy – the most serious chargeagainst him. He was found guilty of multiple counts under the Espionage Act andfive counts of theft, among other charges. He couldspend decades in prison.
Christie Thompson contributed to this story.
Statement from the Department of Justice:
·TheJustice Department has always taken seriously cases in which government employeesand contractors entrusted with classified information are suspected ofwillfully disclosing such classified information to those not entitled toit. As a general matter, prosecutions of whose who leaked classifiedinformation to reporters have been rare, due, in part, to the inherentchallenges involved in identifying the person responsible for the illegaldisclosure and in compiling the evidence necessary to prove it beyond areasonable doubt in a court of law. Prosecutorial decisions are alwaysbased on the facts, the evidence and the law. The Department has beenworking with the intelligence community not only to expedite but also toimprove the handling of such cases. The Justice Department has also beenworking with these agencies to ensure that that the intelligence community andother agencies have remedies of their own to address employees suspected ofleaking classified information in those instances where criminal prosecution isnot feasible.
· The Justice Department does not target whistleblowers.Should any federal employee wish to blow the whistle or report government wrongdoing, there are well-established mechanisms for doingso with the Offices of Inspector General of their respectiveagencies. With regard to classified information, there is aparticular statute providing lawful mechanisms for reporting suchmatters. We always encourage federal employees to do so. However,we cannot sanction or condone federal employees who knowingly and willfullydisclose classified information to the media or others not entitled to receivesuch information. An individual in authorizedpossession of classified information has no authority or right to unilaterallydetermine that classified information should be made public or disclosed tothose not entitled to it. The leaker is not the owner of such informationand only the owner can declassify such information.
As ageneral matter and as provided by the law, federal regulations and JusticeDepartment guidelines, whenever the Justice Department conducts aninvestigation of this sort, we seek to strike the proper balance between FirstAmendment freedoms and the law enforcement and national security interest ininvestigating unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Inrecognition of the importance of freedom of the press to a free and democraticsociety, it is the Justice Department's policy that the prosecutorial power ofthe government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter'sresponsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial publicissues.
Image Sources: Associated Press, Getty Images, Wikimedia Commons
