SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
NYT Declares Snowden a Thief-and Journalism a Crime
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."
Oct 06, 2016
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 the 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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
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 the 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
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
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 the 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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.