Excellent points, thanks.

I hold fidelity to the rule of law of paramount importance. Of equal importance, however, is the principles behind preserving a democratic republic that realizes the greatest possible equality, justice, and freedom for a maximum plurality of citizens. I judge laws and their executions by the latter standard, and I interrogate achieving the latter standard by upholding the former. They should operate in the public sphere in much the same way as we've established branches of government to serve as checks and balances against each other.

As a defender of civil disobedience as a means to preserve principles while maintaining fidelity to law, I definitely hold that, while one may legitimately be justified as a civil disobedience if one meets the criteria, this does not absolve one of the status of lawbreaker and merit a need for legal review and/or criminal prosecution of one's disobedient acts. So, I think we agree on that point--including that supporting fidelity to law vis à vis prosecution does not equal supporting conviction and imprisonment. I also find it is not inconceivable that one could oppose prosecution in certain cases where the principles are of such grave concern or endangered in such a fashion that prosecution, and especially conviction, can further erode protection of the principles that ought to be preserved and protected by a just society. Also, if one sees a juridical trend in which the courts' decisions appear to be failing their purpose in the contracted balance of powers, I think we hit a point where, from a critical theoretic point of view, we've got serious trouble. If an executive is trampling the Constitution (or viewed to be doing so by a significant portion of the population), and the legislature is not reigning abuse of power in via specific legislation, and the courts are either passing on or showing deference to the executive (for debatable reasons), where else do the citizens turn in their desire to maintain fidelity to law and protect established principles?

(By the way, I'm not trying to suggest some water-the-tree-of-liberty-with-the-blood-of-tyrants nonsense. History is replete with great examples of tyrants, and none of them have been sourced in the American presidency yet.)

The Espionage Act itself, and its amendments, have been the subject of historical, legal, and philosophical criticism. Using it with such frequency to pursue leakers is an interesting historical turn that is, to my knowledge, quite unique to this administration. But I admit that despite my undergrad- & grad-level courses in 20th-century American history, my awareness is likely colored at this point by the frequency with which the Espionage Act is being applied and discussed in such a concentrated period of time.

I'd be quite interested in seeing more information specifically on factor 1, but from a broader frame of reference that encompasses liberties taken with government secrets since WWI and the Espionage Act's enactment. If we had enough information on factor 2, that would also be enlightening. Factors 3 and 4 appear to be somewhat discoverable, if enough information was available for interrogation. One could determine the viability of factor 3, while factor 4 is the only one that starts to wander into somewhat speculative territory (at least until we're far enough beyond the Obama administration that we can interrogate primary sources to determine its explanatory power). You're right that all four factors (and perhaps more) can be true.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. I'm going to try digging up more info on these cases.