ON SUNDAY EVENING, at around 9:30, a senior CIA official committed an egregious violation of the Espionage Act, leaking a cache of secret cables to someone who did not have clearance to receive them. The official now stands in breach of a draconian law the Obama administration has used to win lengthy prison sentences against leakers and whistleblowers.
Of course the breach occurred in the latest episode of Homeland, so nobody is going to jail, unless manufacturing an implausible plotline is a federal crime. But the scenario that played out between Saul Berenson and Carrie Mathison on Sunday constitutes a welcome repudiation in popular culture of an abusive law, because Saul and Carrie are the heroes in this show, and heroes don’t do things that merit a 35-year prison sentence. While Homeland tends to be as reactionary as it is enjoyable, the latest twist puts Saul and perhaps Carrie into the same Espionage Act box as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim and John Kiriakou, all of whom have been charged under the law.
Yes, that means Saul Berenson is our new Edward Snowden, with the caveat that a compliant Saul was taken into custody in Berlin at the end of the episode, while the usually long arm of American law enforcement has not been able to touch Snowden, who lives in Russia. I wouldn’t be surprised if the show’s producers and writers, whose prior work is not infused with enthusiasm for left or libertarian causes, make the argument in a future episode that leaking classified documents for noble reasons is laudable only if you face the music like Saul. But let’s put that aside, because according to the Department of Justice, whether or not you surrender doesn’t lessen the impact of the dastardly things you have done to shred national security.
Although Sunday’s episode did not mention the Espionage Act, here’s how it comes into play. As the episode neared its end, Saul became convinced by Carrie, who herself is something of a fugitive, that the Russians had infiltrated the CIA. Carrie told Saul that she needs to see a cache of secret files that will give her the clues to expose the Kremlin’s perfidy. Carrie is of course no longer at the CIA, but once Saul came under suspicion as a turncoat for the Israelis and was abruptly deprived of his clearance, he surreptitiously accessed the agency’s computer system, downloaded the files, and then gave them to Carrie via the dashing billionaire she works for.
(Don’t blame me if you’re having a hard time following the plot, and please be thankful I haven’t mentioned the story line that involves a bullet-riddled Quinn trying to kill himself to save Carrie and being rescued at the last second by a Good Samaritan who takes him home and gives him a transfusion of his own blood but unfortunately does so at the Berlin apartment building where a just-released-from-prison Islamic radical is planning a series of bomb plots that Quinn overhears, leading Quinn to kill the radical while groaning and staggering from the septic bullet wound in his side. This is Homeland at its terrible best.)
It’s going to be instructive to see how the rest of the season deals with what Saul and Carrie have just done. I think it’s safe to assume they will be exonerated for exposing, through the leaked files, the Russian mole (or moles) — one of whom, as we already know, is the head of station in Berlin. But the fact is that Saul and Carrie have potentially violated a couple of sections of the Espionage Act, which does not allow for good intentions as an excuse for leaking classified documents. Carrie might be on the hook, in addition to Saul, because the U.S. government has intimated that it might be illegal to ask someone to leak classified documents.
Of course the law is one thing and its application by the Obama administration is another. David Petraeus, the former general and CIA director, shared with his biographer (and then-girlfriend) several diaries filled with secret information, but he got just a slap on the wrist, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material. Will Saul and Carrie receive the Petraeus treatment from the Homeland equivalent of the Department of Justice — that is, the writers’ room? I hope so, if only to demonstrate that leaking secret documents in the public interest is an act that deserves the gratitude of society. Or an Emmy.
WAIT!!! “A compliant Saul” was NOT taken into custody in Berlin. His Mossad friends came to the rescue and he is defecting to Israel. He learned from Edward Snowden clearly!!
Who creates and clears secrets?
“Yes, Prime Minister”, episode “Official Secrets”, 1988:
SHOT OF BERNARD WOOLLEY, PRIVATE SECRETARY OF PRIME MINISTER JIM HACKER, APPROACHING THE CAMERA IN DOWNING STREET
REPORTER 1: Bernard Woolley?
BERNARD WOOLLEY: Yes?
REPORTER 1: Your minutes were published in the Post today.
REPORTER 2: The minutes of Jim Hacker’s meeting with the Solicitor-General.
BERNARD WOOLLEY: Yes, I know, look, I’ve got to go to work.
REPORTER 4: Just answer a few questions for us.
WOOLLEY: I’m sorry, I can’t comment.
REPORTER 2: But you’d agree, it all looks very suspicious?
WOOLLEY: What?
REPORTER 3: Well, he offered to publish them last Thursday. Why did it take so long?
WOOLLEY: Well, because they weren’t…
WOOLLEY HESITATES AND LOOKS AROUND ANXIOUSLY
REPORTER 2: Weren’t cleared? Weren’t cleared for publication?
REPORTER 1: But the Prime Minister cleared them last Thursday?
WOOLLEY: Yes, but, um, well, there’s the Official Secrets Act.
REPORTER 4: So, how can they be cleared for publication if they’re subject to the Official Secrets Act?
WOOLLEY: Well, the Prime Minister can clear anything.
REPORTER 3: So, are you saying that the Prime Minister is not subject to the Official Secrets Act?
WOOLLEY: Well, um, no.
REPORTER 1: No he is, or no he isn’t?
WOOLLEY: Yes.
REPORTER 4: So you’re saying, Hacker makes the rules.
WOOLLEY: No.
REPORTER 4: That’s just what you said.
WOOLLEY: Yes.
REPORTER 4: So when it comes to the Official Secrets Act, the Prime Minister is above the law?
WOOLLEY: Not in theory.
REPORTER 1: But in practice?
WOOLLEY: No comment.
REPORTER 3: That’s very interesting Bernard.
WOOLLEY: I’m not sure I’ve made myself clear.
REPORTER 3: You’ve made it very clear.
REPORTER 1: One other thing: is there any truth Bernard in the rumour that your minutes took four days to appear because Mr Hacker can only type with two fingers?
WOOLLEY MUMBLES SOMETHING UNINTELLIGIBLE AND ESCAPES THE MEDIA SCRUM. AS HE REACHES THE DOOR OF NUMBER TEN, HE TURNS AROUND AND ADDRESSES THE LEAVING REPORTERS.
WOOLLEY: By the way, I was speaking off the record.
REPORTER 1: Sorry Bernard. A bit late to say that now.
Snowden and parallel construction features in the latest episode of ‘Blindspot’, where the whistleblower is named ‘Winter’ rather than ‘Snowden’. This show is keen to take the moral high ground against illegal surveillance. It comes to something when entertainment shows — and that’s all they all, not propaganda at all, that’s just ludicrous — are driving the public debate. Perhaps we could have an Intercept article on the CCTV episode of ‘The Simpsons’.
I noted in the credits that Homeland originated in Israel and wrote it off as Israeli propaganda. So many shows are out there, habituating us to the new normal of the security state. Intel people breaking the law to catch some bad guy bent on blowing us up with dirty bombs, is the usual plot line. These shows are meant to instill fear in us and acceptance of the security state as an intrusion necessary for our safety, dazzling us with the latest high tech gadgetry and the moral quandary of the characters . As far as a Snowden type plot, I don’t expect they’ll do the right thing. If Saul does get the Petraeus treatment, you can come back to the realization that this is just a TV show and bears no resemblance to the realities of a whistle blower’s life.
Do an article on the Kardashians, that will get the ratings up here at the Intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism
http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3677
Nooo, you gave away the final, that’s unfair…
Each time I think about how absurd Homeland is, I think back to the time the CIA Station Chief in Nha Trang was staggering down a street in Hong Kong, bellowing out the name of one of my colleagues who had the great misfortune to have a random encounter with him. Maybe the show isn’t that absurd, on second thought.
Moscow compromised the CIA decades ago via the Germans and French.
I think some people are forgetting that Homeland is entertainment. I suppose those slagging it off don’t watch it because that would be like cheering on Homeland Security or something. I do watch it and I actually think it is great entertainment. I also think the Nazis have great uniforms in war films. Jeez, I must be a Fascist, sitting there sucking my humbugs on a Sunday afternoon with the telly on and it raining outside, and the cat doesn’t want to go out.
“Of course the breach occurred in the latest episode of Homeland, so nobody is going to jail, unless manufacturing an implausible plotline is a federal crime. ”
This is America. It could be.
Finally these white saviors made up for their clearly racist ignorant view on arab culture and the mideast in general! Total garbage article. You’re a racist for promoting this racist tv show.
Must be prosecuted.
Holmes wrote:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
whisteblower is more dangerous than free speech
is Congress not whisteblower who has the right to prevent
I couldn’t sit through ten minutes of this stuff. It’s a good indication of the way things are going on cable that this abomination keeps getting renewed while something like “Rubicon” gets cancelled after its first season.
@Peter Maass
Putting aside any silly comparisons between HBO’s fictional series HOMELAND and factual reality, there is one issue with this season’s storyline that I am disappointed that THE//INTERCEPT has, thusfar, not chosen to comment upon. Not only the weekly disparaging of Edward Snowden, by name, in the series promo and content, but the actual use of the name Laura for the character in Germany who recieves purloined documents.
One would think that if HBO believes using Edward’s and Laura’s actual names enhances the success of their product, surely they must believe that they deserve fair compensation.
As Usual,
EA
WARNING: The events, characters and entities appearing in this motion picture are fictional. Any resemblance or similarity to actual events, entities or persons, whether living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
etcetera…
I don’t have cable, so I don’t follow the show. However, I find it interesting to see a show used to display the hypocrisy of our govt. After all, is it illegal to expose the illegality of the govt? The laws of the US have systematically been cast aside to further the goals of a corrupt govt. I find there are now three tiers of law: 1). the poor, 2). the rich, 3). the govt. Now, which one applies depends on the status of said defendant. So whistleblowers are destroyed, businesses are too rich, and the govt cad do as they please; “what we say goes” Bush I, 1991, I think. So if the only way the American people can see what’s going on is TV, let them draw their own conclusions after viewing. At least they’ll be entertained.
” is it illegal to expose the illegality of the govt?”
yes, it may be illegal
as is illegal to kill killers
Saul Berenson has already leaked to the Israelis. He is obviously no Snowden. But I’m glad he doesn’t have an AOL email account, even if it does strain credulity, as all top spies are on Hotmail because they haven’t worked out how to export their contact list yet.
What is the CIA deputization process like? (a la Jerry Weaver perhaps or torture doctors?) Would Saul as Chief of Division be able to authorize singlehandedly? Would Dar back him up post-dated after the fact when the you-know-what truly hits the fan with Allison?
Mmmmh, I see. I am really allergic to this kind of entertainment reporting, and embedded toppling Saddam story’s that get published 10 years too late.
An excellent analogy of the hypocricy of The Espionage Act Peter. Also a dastardly example of how this “law” is unevenly applied to anyone who is not part of “the club” (see George Carlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0).
Keep up the gr8 work Dr. Maas.
The unstated fallacy in the article is that laws should be applied indiscriminately. The responsibility of a wise leader is to decide which laws are enforced.
No rational government would allow itself to be devoured by laws of its own creation.
No, it should jump into the mouth of blissful fascism, which supersedes all laws, as ours has done.
If I’m reading between the lines of your post Il duce, you don’t believe in “JUSTICE FOR ALL”?
On one hand you state “…laws should be applied indiscriminately.”
On another hand you state “The responsibility of a wise leader is to decide which laws are enforced.”
On your third hand you state “No rational government would allow itself to be devoured by laws of its own creation.”
Which of your hands is yanking your crank now?
Quit beating around your bush!
No contradiction. A certain gap between how a system works in theory and practice is always to be expected.
Geez, you’re so wise. And witty. And, I’m. Feeling. Sleeeeeepyyyyy…………. And bored. By you. Plastic fascist wannabe dead failed guy weirdo.
@Thomas Jefferson
It appears that your three-handed critical narrative is founded not upon you “reading between the lines”, but on you not having comprehensively read the actual ‘line’ written.
As Usual,
EA
Of course not. Rule of law is anathema to a corporate state, whether it’s an oligarchy like present-day Russia or the kind of kleptocracy we see in certain parts of the Free World hegemony (see, e.g., State Dept/Wikileaks cables, passim). It’s not enforcement of law but of order, and for the benefit of its insiders. Cronyism is perhaps the most pervasive “ism,” isn’t it?
I gave up on Barnum’s Circus In America after Carrie fucked…um..what’s his name? After watching this absurdity for a few show’s, it took everything in my power to keep from rolling on the floor in gut splitting laughter. Finally, the laughter wore off. Haven’t watched it since. I’m sure the CIA has a vested interest in this show too. After all..it make’s the real deal look like…well.. clowns. Just what they want the world to see… instead of the planet wide, drug running, torturing, murdering psychopaths that they are.
Wow! Is even the TV noticing that the constitution has been trashed? Does a TV program say that telling the truth to the citizens should not lead to years in prison?
Hillary would say that they should “face the music” even as an attorney she knows that a trial within the scope of the Espionage act does not allow discussion of the motives. The powerful have used their faithful supporters in government and the media to maintain the status quo.
It will be interesting to see the fallout from this program