Drake Sentencing Transcript
Over at Secrecy News, Steve Aftergood writes:
The government’s treatment of former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake was abusive and akin to acts of British tyranny in pre-Revolutionary War days, said Judge Richard D.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Over at Secrecy News, Steve Aftergood writes:
The government’s treatment of former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake was abusive and akin to acts of British tyranny in pre-Revolutionary War days, said Judge Richard D. Bennett at the July 15 sentencing hearing which concluded the Drake case, one of the Obama Administration’s record number of anti-”leak” prosecutions. A transcript (pdf) of that hearing was prepared at the request of Secrecy News. Mr. Drake was originally suspected of leaking classified information to a reporter and had been charged with ten felony counts, all of which he denied. The prosecution was unable to sustain any of those charges, and the case was settled after Mr. Drake pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of exceeding authorized use of a government computer. He was sentenced (pdf) at the hearing to a year of probation and 240 hours of community service. The hearing transcript is a gripping document, with moments of high dramatic tension and unusual poignancy. Much of the tension arose from the recommendation of the relentless prosecutor, William M. Welch, that Mr. Drake should be fined an additional $50,000 to serve as a deterrent and to “send a message” to other government employees who might be inclined to follow in his footsteps. Mr. Welch complained that Mr. Drake had “received a $10,000 prize for having been a whistleblower,” namely the Ridenhour award, which was presented to Mr. Drake in April 2011. Mr. Welch said that Mr. Drake should therefore be fined at least $10,000 in order to repudiate and cancel whatever “profit” and public respect he had gained from his whistleblowing activity, in which he exposed questionable management practices at the National Security Agency. “He shouldn’t walk away in the sense of a comparison between the fine and this award with any semblance of a notion that he’s profited in any way from his conduct,” Mr. Welch said. “At a minimum, the fine ought to be $10,000, but I would urge the court to impose the $50,000.” But the judge wasn’t having it.
Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.