Split Verdict Given For CIA Programmer Charged In Massive Leak (rawstory.com) 48
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: A federal jury couldn't reach a verdict on whether a former software engineer for the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for leaking a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks, convicting him instead on lesser charges stemming from the leak (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source). Joshua Schulte, 31 years old, was convicted of making false statements and contempt of court -- charges that related to Mr. Schulte's conduct after the March 7, 2017 publication of the CIA materials, dubbed Vault 7 by WikiLeaks. The jury said Monday they were deadlocked on the remaining eight counts, including the illegal gathering and transmission of national defense information. The hung jury, following a week of jury deliberations, marks a blow to the Justice Department in its crackdown on government leaks. One former top CIA official who testified called the leak "the equivalent of a digital Pearl Harbor." The government could choose to prosecute Mr. Schulte again on the deadlocked charges.
How do they get away with Double Jeopardy? (Score:1)
The government could choose to prosecute Mr. Schulte again on the deadlocked charges.
What is this nonsense? Since when do they get to prosecute him again?
Re: How do they get away with Double Jeopardy? (Score:4, Informative)
A hung jury is the equivalent of a mistrial and the prosecution can try again (they often don't unless they find more evidence, or maybe there was only one hold out (in cases where that information is allowed to be gathered).
Re: (Score:2)
"Since there was no finding of innocence."
That is NEVER the case, the defended is always found "not guilty" and not 'innocent'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do they get away with Double Jeopardy? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not double jeopardy, he wasn't acquitted.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you trying to claim? I really don't see how the 9th Amendment applies.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That's all it says, nothing about how the government doesn't get to retry a case when there's a mistrial or hung jury.
Re: Child porn charges in 3 .... 2 .... 1 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
... and what really sux about those charges is - buried deep in some of the FBI documents on Wikileaks - is a notation on planting kiddie pr0n to discredit someone, and cut off all support, *especially* in cases where the person is likely going to get a lot of public sympathy.
So we - as remote readers - have no real clue as to whether those charges are real or not.
Truth: Just another casualty of the war on terrorism/crime/kiddie pr0n ...
Re: (Score:2)
Because he wasn't acquitted. A hung jury is a jury that could not agree upon a verdict. Whereas a finding of Not Guilty requires the jury to agree. In most cases, the government doesn't bother going through with a second trial, especially since most prosecutors don't want to risk a loss, but for important enough* cases they will.
*For certain metrics of important, which can range from actually important because the person is dangerous or they suspect but cannot prove jury tampering to the person on trial pis
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crap (Score:5, Insightful)
One former top CIA official who testified called the leak "the equivalent of a digital Pearl Harbor."
Thats not inflammatory in the least. These were software bugs and exploits the CIA was pedaling in. Invasions of privacy putting Americans at risk to others using the same exploits. Fuck that. Report vulnerabilities or don't, but don't sue the people who do. Fucktards. Seriously...
Re: (Score:1)
Thats not inflammatory in the least.
But it's entirely true, only not for the reasons the former CIA official is promulgating. It's the equivalent of a digital Pearl Harbor because of all the damage that a well-entrenched proprietary operating system has done to our country. It's exactly the equivalent of the operating system pretending to operate in good faith, all the while plotting behind your back to do maximum damage when the time is right.
The CIA programmer is a patriot for exposing this, while everyone in Government who is trying to c
Re: (Score:2)
They were also operating illegally to spy on domestic suers, similar to the abuses at the NSA revealed by Edward Snowden. Cooperating them is a moral equivalent of cooperating in theft or murder "because it's the government". Silence about such criminal abuse is how people "don't know" about criminal behavior by their own governments.
Re: (Score:1)
"Criminal behavior", eh? Could you cite the law, which you so passionately believe was violated by the government?
Re: (Score:3)
Where could I _start_ with the violations? Malware i a violation of the DMCA, the Telecommunications Privacy Act, and the monitoring of personnel communications without a warrant is the US Criminal Code Section 18 paragraph 119. It's also a a constitutional violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments for US citizens, and ov various internaltional treaties such as the UKUSA agreement for monitoring non-military UK citizens. (Other countries have other treaties with the USA.)
The CIA and the NSA both violate thes
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a criminal law.
This law [cornell.edu] bans disclosure of identity of government employees with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence. Arguably, the prosecuted programmer can be charged for violating it (if his disclosures contained any such personally-identifiable information), but prosecuting him does not fall under this law at all.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The CIA and the NSA both violate these laws domestically as a matter of course, despite their charters
> "Charter" is not exactly criminal law,
No. But it demonstrates that they're not even following their own rules.
> NSA, CIA, and the FBI are all parts of the Executive
The FBI does not operate under the cloak of national security that the NSA and the CIA do. They're expected to stop and to prosecute criminals through the US court system, even though they've often proven incompetent to do so. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I asked for the allegedly broken laws, and you cited the charter, which you now acknowledge is not a law...
Which makes no difference...
Nor do they prosecute anyone, do they?
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA and the NSA both violate these laws domestically as a matter of course, despite their charters specifically forbidding their monitoring of domestic affairs, which are under the direct authority of the FBI.
Do you have close friends or relatives who've earned a challenge coin/medallion? Are you aware of how they can be surrendered when an officer/agent/deputy in the course of investigation unintentionally compromises another's from a collateral jurisdiction? It is an unoffical custom of courtesy evolved to assert command without fractious result and more rare than common and diminished greatly after the mid-1980s as ranks within agencies became less a culture of career aspiring white males.
The Secret Service'
Re: (Score:2)
It may be the biggest crime spree in history. If you take ever monitored communication as a single crime then how many have they done? Certainly billions, maybe trillions?
Re: (Score:2)
"Criminal behavior", eh? Could you cite the law, which you so passionately believe was violated by the government?
I think Antique Geekmeister is referring to the Fourth amendment to the US constitution. [wikipedia.org] A similar concept is found in all western countries as a basis of constitutional democracies, along with freedom of speech and freedom of association.
So I opine the first is violation of the 4th amendment, multiple times by a government department would be criminal, then finally The Whistleblower Protection Act [wikipedia.org] for going after the guy attempting to point out the criminal action.
In a communist country it is lega
Nullification... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some members of the jury could have decided to nullify, as is their Constitutional right. If you're reading this and have been called for jury duty, know your rights.
https://fija.org/ [fija.org]
Re:Nullification... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, jury nullification isn't a Constitutional right. It isn't mentioned in the Constitution nor is it some that's explicitly enshrined in the law itself. Rather it's just a consequence of the way our legal system is structured. It's a bit of a legal end around and as much as it feels like this wonderful tool, you have to consider that like any tool it could be used for evil purposes. Take an extreme example where a jury of utterly prejudiced people choose to acquit a man of murder even though there's abundant and clear evidence to suggest his guilt. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had multiple examples of exactly that. Jury nullification could result in the most utter perversion of justice as much as it could the truest upholding of it. Be careful because a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
But it's still a legitimate reason to get out of jury duty. If you don't get bounced by one of the lawyers, the judge is almost sure to remove you from the pool.
Re:Nullification... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> It's also handy to know because you can legitimately say in good faith that there's a reason you perhaps shouldn't be a juror.
Knowledge of your rights as a juror is exactly why you _should_ be a juror. Judges and prosecurors normally will pull you off a jury immediately if they discover you're aware of jury nullification. even though it is unconstitutional to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you elaborate, which article of the Constitution is violated? From what I know, both sides — the defense and the prosecution — are entitled to a (large) number of disqualifications for would-be jurors for any reason and even without reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the other way is definitely better, loading juries with, not peers, but carefully curated by the lawyers sets of peers. And loading it with people who don't have the critical thinking skills or knowledge to know when a law is absurd. So much better!
Two wrongs don't make right.
Re: (Score:3)
You're thinking about this all wrong, man.
Sure, when you're talking about someone else's power. But what about when it's yours? Surely you're on your side. When's the last time you made a decision and then screamed "This is an outrage! My decision was a perversion of justice!"?
Why would you want to use it to get out of jury duty, instead of using it to temporarily have more polit
Re: (Score:2)
Also of note, while jury nullification is not illegal, it's not always(usually) legal to inform the jurors of that option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's a sign that the case wasn't strong strong enough to reach a verdict, not itself a verdict, especially after whatever contrivances of legal jurisprudence the judge and the attorneys came up with. Frankly, very few cases come to trial if the evidence is not compelling: it's expensive, attorneys struggle to reach some sort of plea bargain to save everyone's time and ensure both sets of lawyers can claim some sort of victory and get _paid_, and the grand jury that is normally necessary first is instruc
Amusing (Score:2)
Were I on the jury, I would be far more pissed off at the CIA for developing said tools and hiding them behind classification walls than I would be at the person who shined a spotlight on them by showing the world they exist.
A question for Government agencies who dabble in borderline illegal activities:
Wouldn't it be far easier to cease said questionable behavior than having to deal with the fallout when one of you little projects gets leaked ?
Why focus on treatments when you could be focusing on the real
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I'm sure, you'd be pissed at Alan Turing for listening [bbc.com] on your radio chit-chat while trying to intercept the Nazi's traffic...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure, you'd be pissed at Alan Turing for listening [bbc.com] on your radio chit-chat while trying to intercept the Nazi's traffic...
Evoking the bookends of moral authority of Pearl Harbor and Nazis is either cowardice or ignroance to avoid the moral hazards of the CIA's abuses. Ignorance IF you are merely unaware the OSS provided analysis directly to the Pentagon to achieve military objectives in which civilian populations are as spared as possible (either by intervention or classified statistical projections) OR cowardice to engage the CIA's public directive only to spy on foreign nations and nationals being susceptible to abuses invol
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside the bombastic accusation of "cowardice", what "CIA's abuses"? They are doing their jobs, according to the leaked information [slashdot.org], developing capabilities of breaking into the enemy's communications.
There were plenty of German sympathizers among the British [thedailybeast.com] and the Americans [theatlantic.com] in the run-up to WW2 as well. Some weren't merely sympathizing, but working for the enemy [independent.co.uk] — interce
Re: (Score:2)
"CIA's abuses"? They are doing their jobs,...
I appreciate the effort of citation and commitment of your engagement, but if you are unwilling to acknowledge "abuses" and "duty" are not mutually exclusive I am forced to defer to conjecture of individuals and collaborating individuals "doing their jobs" (duty) is inherently incorruptible and without criminal capacity.
As you noted, these organs serve the Executive-- since WWII, by what factors has the executive branch expanded relative to the other two? By a metric of budget? By a metric of departments
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have veered off topic. Point remains: if it was Ok for Turing to intercept all traffic — and work on capabilities of decrypting whatever parts of it where encrypted — then it is still Ok for the newer generations to engage in the same activities.
Crackdown on whistle blowers (Score:2)
Let's be realistic about what this *really* is and always has been. Spying on you and violating your rights is the duty of every government sent to rule over you.
And doubts are emerging about [wikipedia.org] what happened at Pearl Harbor, so there is very little wonder about why a government would want to keep secrets.
Anybody trying to uncover truth will be harshly dealt with.
So again and again (Score:2)
DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE!
It can only hurt you, never help you.
Also in court: DO NOT TESTIFY, let your lawyer to his job.
Then this can't happen to you.
Bad verdict (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For blowing the whistle on his bosses' illegal actions?