WashPost editorial: The government overreaches on a suspected leak

June 12

IN THE END, the case against Thomas A. Drake fizzled. Originally charged with multiple counts under the Espionage Act and potentially facing decades behind bars, the former National Security Agency employee pleaded guilty last week to the minor charge of unauthorized use of a computer — a misdemeanor that carries no jail time and no fine.

So much for the Obama administration’s attempt to use Mr. Drake’s case to deter other potential leakers. Plea bargains typically result in lesser charges and sentences, but the yawning gap between the original charges against Mr. Drake and the plea bargain is not only an embarrassment for the Justice Department but demonstrates the extent to which it overreached.

Although not technically charged with spying, Mr. Drake was indicted in 2010 for five violations of a provision of the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law designed to punish those who hand over national security information to the enemy. Prosecutors based their charges on Mr. Drake’s exchanges with a Baltimore Sun reporter about an NSA surveillance program Mr. Drake believed was mismanaged and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. He was set to go to trial on Monday.

The department’s hand was weakened by a judge’s decision that essentially barred it from proceeding with a number of Espionage Act charges. The government’s decision not to appeal the judge’s ruling and its willingness to accept the dramatically reduced plea by Mr. Drake strengthen the conclusion that the case was poorly conceived.

(More here.)