[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?