Those arguing that Clinton's actions did not violate any law should take a careful look at the sentencing of John Kiriakou, and what his judge informed him. Kiriakou writes:
"All I did was to confirm the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter. The reporter never made the name public, and there was no harm to the national security. But I still faced up to 10 years in prison just for that revelation. So why should the criterion for Clinton be that nobody died? [/] The judge in my case was clear about a number of issues. First, the very definition of 'espionage' is incredibly broad. Espionage is the act of 'providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.' Period. My judge also said that there did not have to be mens rea, or criminal intent, for there to be guilt in an espionage case. And the concept of 'harm to the national security' was irrelevant. ... Clinton revealed the names of perhaps dozens of undercover CIA officers in her unclassified emails."
True, there are clear circumstantial and qualitative differences between Snowden and Clinton. I would, in fact, argue that those differences weigh in favor of Snowden, who made a controlled leak for ethical reasons and for the benefit of public debate, but that is another argument for another time. What is at issue here is that the law is not equal. Clinton made the names of CIA operatives and other classified information available to "persons not entitled to receive it."
If Kiriakou went to prison for this, then why not Clinton?
Abandon the democratic party while there is still time. If Sanders has accomplished anything, it is to demonstrate once again that the above-mentioned party is impervious to reform. Locate the nearest exit and make your way to the left, if you haven't done so already.
Those arguing that Clinton's actions did not violate any law should take a careful look at the sentencing of John Kiriakou, and what his judge informed him. Kiriakou writes:
"All I did was to confirm the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter. The reporter never made the name public, and there was no harm to the national security. But I still faced up to 10 years in prison just for that revelation. So why should the criterion for Clinton be that nobody died? [/] The judge in my case was clear about a number of issues. First, the very definition of 'espionage' is incredibly broad. Espionage is the act of 'providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.' Period. My judge also said that there did not have to be mens rea, or criminal intent, for there to be guilt in an espionage case. And the concept of 'harm to the national security' was irrelevant. ... Clinton revealed the names of perhaps dozens of undercover CIA officers in her unclassified emails."
(Source: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/all_whistleblowers_should_get_pass_if_hillary_clinton_does_20160606)
True, there are clear circumstantial and qualitative differences between Snowden and Clinton. I would, in fact, argue that those differences weigh in favor of Snowden, who made a controlled leak for ethical reasons and for the benefit of public debate, but that is another argument for another time. What is at issue here is that the law is not equal. Clinton made the names of CIA operatives and other classified information available to "persons not entitled to receive it."
If Kiriakou went to prison for this, then why not Clinton?
The answer seems clear: There are separate standards for hegemons. Look at Petraeus, for example. Nick Turse conducts an illuminating investigation into the Petraeus brand at Tomdispatch (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176160/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_revolving_doors%2C_robust_rolodexes%2C_and_runaway_generals/#more).
Abandon the democratic party while there is still time. If Sanders has accomplished anything, it is to demonstrate once again that the above-mentioned party is impervious to reform. Locate the nearest exit and make your way to the left, if you haven't done so already.