If "Intent" and/or "Gross Negligence" is the standard...

[mjr]

Why is Petty Officer 1st Class Kristian Saucier facing 6 years in prison?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2652586

FBI and Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents said he photographed the sub’s auxiliary steam plant panel and reactor compartment in January 2009, its propulsion operation system in March 2009 and part of its nuclear reactor in July 2009. The feds have never alleged he shared or planned to share the pictures.

emphasis mine.

And why can't I use the "intent defense" next time an officer stops me? "Officer, I didn't intend to run that stop sign...and nobody got injured...so you should just let me go."

[s_stabeler]

Basically, taking the photos was a crime in and of itself. Therefore, the intent as "did he mean to take the photos"- if he intended to share the photos, that is a more major crime.

Think of it like a case where you kick someone, and, because you caught them in the wrong place, they die of their injuries ( say, if you hit them in the stomach. The reason behind it is irrelevant)- you are guilty of assault regardless. Them dying upgrades that to manslaughter. In the case in the article, the crime of taking pictures would be upgraded to some form of crime that can be summarised as "disclosed classified information without permission"

[Daskinor]

I can only assume that you are comparing this to the Hillary email situation.

1. This violation was in a different sphere of influence. Then what jurisdiction Hillary transgressions where in. Clinton was never accused of possession of anything greater than Confidential. Saucier would of been Top Secret. Clinton had document origination powers, Saucier did not.

2. The submarine force's has a ban on personal electronic devices on-bard subs. This is what Kristian Saucier crime actually is.

3. Three witnesses attested to knowledge of Saucier's possession of the images and where turned in by them, and the FBI alleged Saucier attempted to destroy the evidence that he had taken them

4. They eventually plead down to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of classified material. Espionage was not mentioned as an element of his plea, and Saucier was not court-martialed.

5. On 19 August 2016, Saucier was sentenced to one year in prison, six months of home confinement, and fined $100, far less than the six-year sentence the prosecution sought.

[mjr]

I'll just point to this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

I'd say at a minimum this section is relevant.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Emphasis mine. So does Comey's characterization of Hillary's handling of the emails count as "gross negligence"?

[wolfie]

2. The submarine force's has a ban on personal electronic devices on-bard subs. This is what Kristian Saucier crime actually is.

Does this mean that if a submariner wants to wear a watch while on duty, they have to get a 100% mechanical watch, rather than the more common quartz watches? If so, that could get rather expensive, since nowadays only the premium brands make mechanical watches.

[Daskinor]

I'll just point to this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

I'd say at a minimum this section is relevant.



Emphasis mine. So does Comey's characterization of Hillary's handling of the emails count as "gross negligence"?

No, it was not defense info that was on the email server. So this does not apply, I think they were incorrectly redacted dossiers. And its important to note that the classification is Confidential and the SoS has document origination ability. At the Confidential level she can simply say "NOT CLASSIFIED" and it is not classified. Only the president can say, hold on wait a minute.

[mjr]

No, it was not defense info that was on the email server. So this does not apply, I think they were incorrectly redacted dossiers. And its important to note that the classification is Confidential and the SoS has document origination ability. At the Confidential level she can simply say "NOT CLASSIFIED" and it is not classified. Only the president can say, hold on wait a minute.

I suppose that depends on how one defines "relating to the national defense".

I'd say a classified document might qualify.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

So boring....

[Daskinor]

Does this mean that if a submariner wants to wear a watch while on duty, they have to get a 100% mechanical watch, rather than the more common quartz watches? If so, that could get rather expensive, since nowadays only the premium brands make mechanical watches.

That is correct, the entire sub is a classified space. So anything, even a watch would need to be gov issued.

Think about it, we exist in a world where spy tools can be put in almost anything.

[Daskinor]

I suppose that depends on how one defines "relating to the national defense".

I'd say a classified document might qualify.

No its really straight forward from a bureaucratic point of view. None of the documents in question where classified by the DoD, so the Defense statues don't apply.

[Gravekeeper]

This shit again?

There is a mountain of case law and Supreme Court rulings behind the Espionage Act due to its overly broad nature. Let me help you Google that:

“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”

- Gorin v. United States 312 U.S. 19 (1941)

TL;DR Unless you can prove Clinton had intent to injure the US or to aid a foreign power she can't be charged under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act was written too broadly and its powers have been curtailed by the Supreme Court in a series of rulings over the years. Even if its original wording has not been changed.

[mjr]

This shit again?

There is a mountain of case law and Supreme Court rulings behind the Espionage Act due to its overly broad nature. Let me help you Google that:



- Gorin v. United States 312 U.S. 19 (1941)

TL;DR Unless you can prove Clinton had intent to injure the US or to aid a foreign power she can't be charged under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act was written too broadly and its powers have been curtailed by the Supreme Court in a series of rulings over the years. Even if its original wording has not been changed.

Then why is the Naval Officer facing prison time? Can/Could anyone prove he had intent to "injure the US or aid a foreign power"?

Answer: No.

So why is HE facing prison time?

[s_stabeler]

because he is not being charged with espionage. He is being charged, basically, with illegally photographing a classified area. Clinton is different for two reasons. 1) she actually has the authority to declassify the material in question. 2) when she set up the private server, she was acting under advice it was acceptable. Her advisers may have been wrong, but it changes the ethics of it.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Congratulations. You've discovered the magical power of judicial interpretation.

[mjr]

because he is not being charged with espionage. He is being charged, basically, with illegally photographing a classified area. Clinton is different for two reasons. 1) she actually has the authority to declassify the material in question. 2) when she set up the private server, she was acting under advice it was acceptable. Her advisers may have been wrong, but it changes the ethics of it.

The fact remains, if "intent" matters, neither of them should be in any legal trouble. If the Petty Officer got busted for taking pictures of a classified area, shouldn't Hillary be in trouble for having classified documents on a private server -- BEFORE she "unclassified" them?

Answer: Yes.