It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
The US government has consistently argued that it does not have to show any of the following:
1. That the person acted with the intent to harm the United States or to aid a foreign power.
2. That the person actually believed or even had reason to believe that disclosing the information would harm the national defense.
3. That the person did not act to disclose information related to illegal activity, or information of significant public interest, i.e., that the person was not acting as a “whistle blower.” (It asserts that there is simply no First Amendment right to disclose such information.)
4. That the disclosure actually caused harm t o the United States,
5. That the person acted with the intent to violate the statute, or
6. That there was a reasonable belief that the disclosure would cause harm (unless only information and no documents were transferred
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert
Let's be honest here: "the other side" doesn't have any better grasp of the situation than the one you're referring to. All they heard is "no charges."
And they will pay zero attention to the use of the phrase "gross negligence" and "did not intentionally" in lieu of "did not."
Sure. I'm not above admitting that some on the other side did not look in to this as they should have.
Also, the gross negligence aspect is a non-starter. the SCOTUS addressed that issue in regards to the espionage act in 1941. Intent was key to their opinion.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Sillyolme
I don't think so.
If a person has been irresponsible for handling a weapon they lose their rights correct ?
Same reasoning applies to Clinton.
She should not be given a loaded weapon.
In the wrong hands.
Classified material gets people killed.
Bad faith, according to that case, is either demonstrable intent OR committing the act while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Shamrock6
Bad faith, according to that case, is either demonstrable intent OR committing the act while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.
Exactly what I have been saying. if the act itself cannot be proven to have harmed the interests of the US, intent must be looked at.
In this case, neither apply.