Judge Blasts Prosecution of Alleged NSA Leaker

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Judge Richard D. Bennett harshly criticized US prosecutor William M. Welch III for his treatment of a former spy agency official Thomas Drake, who was accused of leaking classified material. Bennett called the delays in the now-closed case 'unconscionable' and compared it to British tyranny in the colonial era. In 2007, FBI agents raided Drake's house, but it took over two years for officials to indict him. 'And then, over a year later, on the eve of trial, in June of 2011, the government says, "Whoops, we dropped the whole case,"' Bennett said. Drake was given a mild penalty for pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charge of exceeding authorized use of a computer: a year's probation and 240 hours of community service while all 10 felony counts were dropped. 'That's four years of hell that a citizen goes through,' Bennett said. 'It was not proper. It doesn't pass the smell test.' In contrast with his tough words for Welch, Bennett singled out for praise Drake's public defenders, James Wyda and Deborah L. Boardman, saying their work on behalf of Drake was 'at the highest level of professionalism.' Judge Welch said the matter was now closed and addressed Drake: 'I wish you the best of luck in the rest of your life.'"

Re:Wouldn't it be nice?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

I think the government is immune from most retaliations. The Supreme Court recently ruled that a state prosecutor could essentially act with impunity (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf [supremecourt.gov]), and the California Supreme Court upheld similar coverage by a 1992 anti-SLAPP statute (see http://www.yeelaw.com/1.pdf [yeelaw.com]). Like it or not, these people are not to be crossed. Pity the poor fools who happen to get in their way.

Re:"harshly criticized"

[Garridan]

Actually, contrary to the article, summary, title, etc., the prosecution was not harshly criticized. Both the prosecution and the defense were commended for their professionalism. The judge harshly criticized the executive branch, and complained at length about the fact that he didn't know who was responsible. Apparently, none of the reporters actually read the transcript, or perhaps the original did, and the re-bloggers just took the spin for fact, and spun harder themselves.