
Charges Against Netzpolitik.org Are an Attack on the Free Press - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/treason-charges-against-german-blog-netzpolitikorg-are-attack-free-press
======
rbehrends
The reporting on this issue can at best be described as muddled, including the
original articles by netzpolitik.org.

They are not actually investigating netzpolitik.org, but their (unknown)
sources (clarified in a later article [1]), presumably for leaking the
information.

"Treason" is a misleading translation; the closest equivalent to
"Landesverrat" would probably be "espionage".

The leaked documents were (1) parts of the budget of the domestic intelligence
service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and (2)
plans by the same institution to create a new unit to conduct internet
surveillance. Because these are purely domestic issues, it is unlikely that
the leak qualifies as "Landesverrat", which requires creating a grave danger
for the _external_ security of the Federal Republic of Germany (creating a
danger for Germany's _internal_ security is insufficient, and neither is
embarrassing the government, including in international affairs).

Leaking the documents is still likely a crime under §353b of the criminal code
[2], but the German Federal Prosecutor is not competent to prosecute
violations of §353b (this is the prerogative of the state prosecutors).

[1] [https://netzpolitik.org/2015/generalbundesanwalt-
bestaetigt-...](https://netzpolitik.org/2015/generalbundesanwalt-bestaetigt-
strafanzeige-des-verfassungsschutzes-gegen-unsere-quellen/)

[2] [http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...](http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p3016)

~~~
itistoday2
Thanks for pointing that out! I hope the EFF updates their article.

Question: how can they push charges on the sources if they do not know who the
sources are? (Or do they?)

~~~
dannyobrien
Parent is right about it being unclear that the charges are being directed at
Netzpolitik.org: I've just pushed a correction, a rewrite of the article, and
included the original for reference.

------
nickbauman
What does German law consider "Treason"? In the US, treason has a very
specific meaning regarding the _Mens rea_ of the accused. You have to prove
that the accused meant to do harm to the republic by the action. (For example
even worst case scenario, Snowden could never be accused of treason because
there was no intent to harm; quite the contrary.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)

~~~
baertram
It has more or less the same legal meaning.

I have seen no evidence for any "treason" charges (according to §94 StGB), the
charges are most likely "disclosure of secrets" (§353b StGB).

The cause for the confusion of the terms is most likely the relation of the
words.

    
    
      "Verrat" -> "the act of treason"
      "Verräter" -> "traitor"
    

versus:

    
    
      "jemanden etwas verraten" -> "to disclose something to someone"
      "Geheimnisverrat" -> "disclosure of secrets"

------
itistoday2
Try not to get confused: _writing_ about mass-surveillance plans is treason,
the secret non-consensual mass-surveillance itself is not.

~~~
itistoday2
To the downvoters: are you really that frightened to consider the possibility
that the government is abusing its relationship with you?

What if your spouse treated you this way? Would you not feel betrayed if one
day you found out that they were monitoring all of your communications "for
your safety" without informing you or asking for your permission?

------
themeek
Germany's Secret Service just charged their leading Civil Rights group on
treason for publishing information about the German government's plans to
further expand domestic mass surveillance.

This is not different than what has happened in the United States - though the
US uses National Security Letters, gag orders, financial and criminal leverage
and defamation - its only when these don't work that the US will reach toward
the Espionage Act.

We look back in history and question why citizens in history asked their
governments to send civil rights activists to prison and to silence certain
stories in the press.

Today we get modern answers to these questions at least every few months.

I have polled friends, family and acquaintances: the overwhelming response is
that we don't feel safe.

I have also sampled the official stance from press releases and speeches: the
overwhelming justification is that we are not safe.

As all things are, the truth is much more complicated.

~~~
rayiner
> This is not different than what has happened in the United States - though
> the US uses National Security Letters, gag orders, financial and criminal
> leverage and defamation - its only when these don't work that the US will
> reach toward the Espionage Act.

The hell it isn't. When did the U.S.G. hit the ACLU with treason charges?

~~~
themeek
Not the ACLU. James Risen. Journalist.

~~~
dragonwriter
Ok, when was James Risen charged with treason by the US?

AFAICT, the most significant legal battle he's had with the US Justice
Department was over the latter's attempt to force him to testify in the trial
of Jeffery Sterling, a former CIA officer charged with leaking. Risen himself
hasn't been charged with anything.

~~~
themeek
He was charged with the Espionage Act. Please refer to the original comment to
see that I did not claim the US charges individuals with treason.

Risen got it better than others though in some ways. Binney and his family
were held at gunpoint. Nacchio was blackmailed.

~~~
tptacek
Risen wasn't charged. His source was.

Nacchio was one of several executives at a variety of companies charged with
bilking shareholders out of tens of millions of dollars. The case against him
appears to have been quite strong: he stipulated to a number of high-dollar
sales of his stocks during times where he knew the price of Qwest's stock was
going to crater.

~~~
themeek
Yes, see the other thread. Responded there.

Right, he was involved in insider trading. If you don't do anything illegal
it's hard to blackmail you for it. That was the claim. Blackmail. Sure, he did
something wrong(-ish).

~~~
tptacek
Do you have evidence for "blackmail" beyond the word of someone who bilked
shareholders out of tens of millions of dollars by selling insider shares in
advance of earnings restatements?

~~~
themeek
Lol.

