The pending prosecution of former National Security Agency official Thomas A. Drake, who was alleged to be a source of classified information in a series of newspaper articles about the NSA, will present “novel” legal issues for the court to consider, prosecutors and defense attorneys said in a joint motion last week.
“The indictment raises complex factual and legal issues and novel questions of law relating to, among other things, the retention of classified materials,” they wrote in an April 29 motion (pdf) to waive the right to a speedy trial.
Unlike former DoD official Larry Franklin in the troubled AIPAC case (which was abandoned by the government before trial last year), Mr. Drake was not charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Instead, he is accused of “willful retention of classified information.” The precise nature of this offense, and the threshold for culpability in this case, remain to be litigated.
“The prosecution of this case will involve classified documents,” the joint motion stated, and the defense “may involve classified documents,” necessitating that defense counsel obtain the required security clearances. “The pre-indictment investigation in this case spanned more than two years,” the motion noted, though defense counsel was not appointed until after the indictment (pdf) issued.
A trial date has been tentatively scheduled for October 18, 2010.
A deeper understanding of methane could help scientists better address these impacts – including potentially through methane removal.
While it is reasonable for governments to keep the most sensitive aspects of nuclear policies secret, the rights of their citizens to have access to general knowledge about these issues is equally valid so they may know about the consequences to themselves and their country.
Advancing the U.S. leadership in emerging biotechnology is a strategic imperative, one that will shape regional development within the U.S., economic competitiveness abroad, and our national security for decades to come.
Inconsistent metrics and opaque reporting make future AI power‑demand estimates extremely uncertain, leaving grid planners in the dark and climate targets on the line