The old “theft” the New York Times headline (10/5/16) refers to is Edward Snowden’s exposure of government crimes.
On the home page today of the New York Times, the lead story (10/5/16) bears the headline: “Contractor for NSA Charged in Possible New Theft of Secrets.” Describing the arrest of Harold T. Martin III, a contractor for the National Security Agency accused of taking classified documents, the home page teaser reports, “The arrest raises the embarrassing prospect that for the second time in three years, a contractor managed to steal secrets.”
The main story’s headline continues the same emphasis: “NSA Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets.” The second paragraph states:
The arrest raises the embarrassing prospect that for the second time in three years, a contractor for the consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton managed to steal highly damaging secret information while working for the NSA. In 2013, Edward J. Snowden, who was also a Booz Allen contractor, took a vast trove of documents from the agency that were later passed to journalists, exposing surveillance programs in the United States and abroad.
The article goes on to say, “The information believed to have been stolen by Mr. Martin appears to be different in nature from Mr. Snowden’s theft, which included documents that described the depth and breadth of the NSA’s surveillance.”
The problem with all this talk about the “theft” and “stealing” of secrets is that while Snowden, one of the most prominent whistleblowers of the modern era, has indeed been charged by the federal government with theft—along with two violations of the Espionage Act—he’s been convicted of no crime. Were he to stand trial, he would no doubt try to offer a public interest defense of his actions—as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has urged that he be allowed to do—saying that the need to expose government wrongdoing overrode the law against unauthorized release of government documents.
The Times may believe that such a defense would be unsuccessful—and no doubt many legal experts would agree with that assessment. Still, it’s unusual for journalists to assume that someone accused of a crime is guilty, in effect taking the role of judge and jury upon themselves.
Such an assumption is particularly problematic in this case, because the same section of the legal code that is used to charge Snowden with theft of “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value” also criminalizes “whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted.” There is no explicit exception for journalists there, any more than there’s an exception for whistleblowers.
If we’re going to call Snowden’s documents “stolen,” then journalists frequently receive “stolen” records from sources and use them as the basis for stories—as the Times itself has done with documents released by Snowden. If Snowden is a thief, then the New York Times is a fence.
One shouldn’t have to point out to journalists that this interpretation of the law is fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment and, ultimately, with democracy: When exposing evidence of government crimes is a crime, there is no check on the power of the state.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Liz Spayd at public@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes or @SpaydL). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
“Still, it’s unusual for the journalists to assume that someone accused of a crime is guilty, in effect taking the role of judge and jury upon themselves.”
Buh?
That could have used some clarification. Corporate journalists frequently implicitly assume that people who are arrested or named as suspects are guilty–but there is a strong convention that you don’t, for example, call someone a murderer unless they’ve been convicted of murder. That’s why you see the word “alleged” so often in crime stories.
When it comes to the unfavored, that’s a sparsely attended convention, isn’t it just?
It is not a sprarseley attended convention amongst people who understand our legal system and libel laws. Alleged should always preface any criminal accusations until conviction, if it ever happens, occurs.
I’m sure corpress “journalists” understand the law, as well as the inherent equity in the practice.
It’s just that when it comes to those they wish to villify, they frequently choose to ignore that principle.
I didn’t realize that Snowden had been formally charged by the US.
I know there are rumors of a secret grand jury issuing a sealed indictment, but confirmation?
As for the NY Times, it’s just more and more embarrassingly sloppy every day.
Today there’s a OpEd piece, which ostensibly is against further intervention by the US in Syria, well sort of. The essay states as a matter of fact that the Syrian government used chlorine gas, then there’s a hyperlink to Times “reporting” on the subject, but the Times reporting doesn’t actually offer any verification of the claim that the Syrian government did it–just claims. (Chlorine gas is real easy to make with household chemicals–something the Times reporter seems completely unaware of.)
100% agreement with your last paragraph. Many anti-Snowden people do not consider this vital truth.
Snowden, Manning for Nobel Peace Prize! We citizens of the world justly deserve.
How about when hackers employed by a government (or a corporation) obtain private correspondence that is then used to advance an agenda that THEY SAY is in the public interest? Is legal immunity always warranted, or only when it serves one’s own political ends? And does such activity make Vladimir Putin a hero?
The government steals my communications. It has no cause to do so preemptively or otherwise. My communication privacy and property extends beyond what I write and say, it includes my travel, the persons I make contact with and times.
The government has been doing survelience of this sort on mass populations.
That is a theft and a class action suit. Where are the brave independent law practices on this?
I no longer expect the NYT to deliver and unbiased article. It’s a dirty shame what has happened to the media both in print and TV.
Snowden deserves the Medal of Freedom for protecting our freedoms at great personal risk!
When I was a kid, there seemed to be universal revulsion of the “I was just following orders” excuse offered by German civilians as well as military regarding their unquestioning quotidian support of criminal activities committed against their fellow citizens or captured civilians in countries they had invaded. Such a defense was not allowed in either the Nuremberg or Tokyo trials.
As an old man, I now fear that our “leaders” and many of our fellow citizens seem to have forgotten which side of the argument we were on. Hillary calls Snowden a traitor; Trump says he should be executed. Obama declared Manning to be guilty prior to the start of his courts martial and without any evidence having been presented, notwithstanding his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and the ultimate “decider” in the case. For a “constitutional law expert,” a profoundly ugly performance, on his part.
We have truly gone to the Dark Side. And there’s no sun rising in any coming administration, either.