[jstalin]

Yes. See here:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/06/23/a-look-at-the-charges-agai...

"Note that the second and third charges both require the feds to prove that Snowden's release of information to the press was harmful to the United States. This puts our government in the position of attempting to prove that it is harmful to release accurate information about how it is spying on us, and how it is misleading us about spying on us.

Espionage charges usually describe someone with classified information leaking that information to powers hostile to the United States government."

[eli]

That doesn't seem like it would be nearly as awkward nor as difficult to prove as is implied here.

I would think secret details of spy programs would almost always harm national security (insofar as you believe spying can aide national security). The whole point of spying on communications depends on the targets not knowing they're being listened to.

(Note: I'm not saying the NSA program is good or justified)

[fnordfnordfnord]

>That doesn't seem like it would be nearly as awkward nor as difficult to prove as is implied here.

That goes double if they can declare him an "enemy combatant" and try in in a secret military tribunal, as opposed to normal kangaroo court.

>I would think secret details of spy programs would almost always harm national security (insofar as you believe spying can aide national security).

How could it be any other way?

>The whole point of spying on communications depends on the targets not knowing they're being listened to.

In that case, I think there is little doubt as to whether the foreign targets were previously aware of our activities.

[csense]

"The statute...require[s] the government to prove that the defendant...communicated or made unavailable to an unauthorized person...in any manner prejudicial to the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States...classified information..."

The middle part (labeled (3) by Popehat), as the blog correctly points out, is the reason this is a big controversy and not a straightforward spy case -- it's not at all clear that his disclosures were meant to benefit foreign powers, or that he was attempting to harm the United States.

[eli]

I think you're misreading that. It's whether the action has the effect of prejudicing the United States or benefiting a foreign government regardless of intent.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>It's whether the action has the effect of prejudicing the United States or benefiting a foreign government regardless of intent.

I wonder if there is a precedent supporting successful use of that charge. That's very broad wording. Taken literally, nearly anything you say that isn't puppies and rainbows could qualify.

[eli]

Nearly anything you say about a classified intelligence program to unauthorized people, you mean. Yeah, I think that's the point :)

[fnordfnordfnord]

Can't you see the Kafka-esque nature of such a condition?