If one follows the 4th amendment and has a specific individual in mind and can get a warrant to present to service providers, there is no need to grab beau coup metdata. The service provider knows its customers, tracks usage, and sends them a bill already.
Also, enough with the rubberstamp secret courts. We already have a federal judiciary system. No need for a parallell kangaroo court.
http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.htmlhttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#reptTo put in perspective of "rubberstamp", 33949 warrants were applied for, 33942 were granted, 11 were rejected. (Numbers not clean because warrant applications can carry over from previous year.) 143,364 NSLs were applications were completed that involved US persons.
That is a 0.000324 rejection rate, or 99.999676 approval rate. Which deeply says something about those 11 rejected warrants.
It would probably be a better idea to have a rotating system. The judges do need security clearances. So, set up a roster, say a year or two out. They have a year or so to get their clearance, they serve as a FISA judge for say, 3 to 6 months. Then never again. Keep two presiding judges on as permanent staff to provide continuity, but rotate them out every five years or whatnot on an alternating basis.
Taking classified data and giving it to foreign nationals (eg BRITISH REPORTERS) is f)&$$ing espionage. There is NO wiggle room there. He committed a crime, that crime is espionage. The fact that the American people also saw it doesn't change that fact.
The information he revealed did not reveal -illegal- activity, it revealed technically legal, albeit activity that isn't 'right'.
Don't get me wrong, I wish things weren't monitored the way they apparently are, but dumping classified stuff into the hands of others, not to mention revealing and compromising sources and methods, is NOT the way you do it.
Hell, he could have simply just SAID what was going on to reporters, and it would still be the same crime, but far less damaging (in theory).
He is a criminal, not a hero, and I believe he did what he did to hurt this country, and that's why he fled. If he wanted to "take a stand" he could have done so in a less damaging way, and take his licks...if he was in the right, then maybe a jury would see it that way, HOWEVER, running to a foreign country isn't "doing the right thing" its called f@$$ing espionage.
Meh. Yes and no.
He is a criminal, that is definite and beyond question. Maybe a hero, that's a bit subjective.
He hurt his government, that is definite and beyond question. Whether he hurt his country is still yet to be seen.
Bit of an aside, one of the laws in question Internal Security Act of 1950 (aka Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, McCarran Act, etc) is used to suspend the Second Amendment on military bases.
He is guilty of 18 USC § 793 (d)
"(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or"
Sentence is "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Problem is, it's been bitterly disputed since Schenck v. United States. You have the whole Sedition Act thing that was grossly unconstitutional, and got tossed out. The Espionage Act was deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS in Schenck, but not in a comprehensive way. So, short answer is, he's
probably definitely guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
However, it'll be up to the courts to say whether exposing potentially or actually illegal activity is covered by the Espionage Act. His lawyer likely will argue that this was unrelated to national defense, because it was aimed against the US population and not foreign enemies. I am not saying I agree with this line of thought, just that it is not my place to decide guilt or innocence.
Short answer is, we'll see. If the operation was primarily aimed at the US citizenry, it's not espionage because it's not related to national defense unless the government argues that it was part of national defense against US citizens. Which it could, but would be suicidal grade bad PR. If the operation was primarily geared against foreign enemies, he should be found guilty (IMHO, IANAL/IANAJ) even if the program itself is illegal. I don't know of any legal "exclusion" rule that exempts unauthorized disclosure of classified material relating to the illegal nature of a program. There bloody well should be, because Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is near useless.
Poll