Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records - Page 5

section eight · 07-18-08, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

That's one notion I s'pose. I don't think it has much basis in law or anything, but it is a notion that helps to bolster Bush backers beliefs. So it seems to be working as intended.

Well you would be wrong it is a law and it is quite specific:

Quote:

Section 422. Defenses and exceptions

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent
It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant
is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed
the intelligence relationship to the United States of the
individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is the basis for the prosecution.
(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person
committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be
subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or
4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to
commit an offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who
acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify
and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, or (B) in the case of a person who
has authorized access to classified information.
(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to
transmit information described in such section directly to either
congressional intelligence committee.
(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an
individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself
as a covert agent.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ction_422.html

Simon W. Moon · 07-18-08, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Regardless even if that is the case then as soon as Armitage leaked to Novak it ceased to be a crime for anyone else to, also, leak the name.

What part of the USG publicly acknowledging something are you having trouble understanding?

Novak ≠ the United States government
Armitage ≠ the United States government

Following from this is the necessary conclusion that neither the actions of Armitage nor the actions of Novak constitute the United States publicly acknowledging or revealing the intelligence relationship to the United State.

gl

jallman · 07-18-08, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Executive privilege will not apply if the prosecutor can show that the testimony is necessary for proving a crime, but as I have shown no crime was committed because the CIA had already divulged her name as did Wilson and then later Armitage.

Exactly. What crime was committed?

section eight · 07-18-08, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

What part of the USG publicly acknowledging something are you having trouble understanding?

Yes um leaking the name to a member of the press doesn't count as disclosing the name to the public now? That's some interesting logic you have there.

Quote:

Novak ≠ the United States government
Armitage ≠ the United States government

A) Armitage was a member of the Bush administration thus Armitage does = U.S. Government.

B) Novak is the member of the press thus a member of the U.S. government divulging Plame's identity to him does = public disclosure.

C) The CIA itself disclosed her name long ago through the Swiss embassy in Havana.

Quote:

Following from this is the necessary conclusion that neither the actions of Armitage nor the actions of Novak constitute the United States publicly acknowledging or revealing the intelligence relationship to the United State.

gl

This is a laughable assertion since the crux of the lefts argument has been that the crime lay specifically in disclosing her name, whether or not it was publicly disclosed after the leak is irrelevant.

But regardless are you honestly trying to assert that a member of the U.S. government divulging the information to a member of the press does not constitute as the: "United States publicly acknowledging or revealing the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution"?

cascadian · 07-18-08, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

C) The CIA itself disclosed her name long ago through the Swiss embassy in Havana.

This is an abuse of the word "disclose" as there was no intent to communicate to the Cubans. If someone pulls down your pants are you "disclosing" the color of your underwear? I think not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

But regardless are you honestly trying to assert that a member of the U.S. government divulging the information to a member of the press does not constitute as the: "United States publicly acknowledging or revealing the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution"?

I don't claim to represent Simon here, but this a ridiculous take. An employee of the government is not necessarily acting with authority of the government. Under this interpretation anyone could out any operative they want and be immune to prosecution simply because they are employed by the government.

Binary_Digit · 07-18-08, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Would you be okay with nuclear secrets being leaked to Iran even though the same secrets were leaked to China years ago??

This isn't about nuclear secrets the legal case in question refers specifically to under cover intel operatives.

Come on, I was drawing a metaphor and you know it.

Quote:

It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant
is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed
the intelligence relationship to the United States of the
individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is the basis for the prosecution.

You keep quoting this but I don't think you're reading it the same way I am, because I think it fully supports what I've been saying. The wording is tricky, so it could mean either of these:

A. the United States had revealed the intelligence relationship
B. the United States had publicly revealed the intelligence relationship

I'm assuming B, and I guess you're assuming A. Cascadian is right, we need a legal precedent.

Which is why I brought up the nuclear secrets metaphor. If nuclear secrets were leaked to China, that shouldn't automatically mean it's ok for the information to become public knowledge. Even if the leak does make it to public knowledge, like the existence of NSA for example, it's still illegal for officials who have that knowledge to reveal it to anyone else who'se not authorized to have it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

But you just said that Armitage was off the hook because he didn't know she was covert, so even if you are asserting that the CIA's inadvertent disclosure doesn't count because it wasn't disclosed to the American public then you must admit that it did become public knowledge as soon as Armitage talked to Novak

Not quite, I think it became public knowledge when Novak published his article to the world. But, it had not been publicly revealed or acknowledged by the government, and so officials still had a legal obligation to keep their mouths shut. One leak from one person to one other person doesn't make it public knowledge, and it doesn't let anyone else off the hook for leaking it further. Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of classifying information in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

but since Armitage is off the hook then where is the crime and who committed it?

Like I said in the OP. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. Armitage was one, so who was the other? I'm not saying there was a crime, I'm saying there may have been a crime depending on whether that 2nd person knew (s)he was giving Robert Novak classified information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Both Wilson and Armitage both her identity public knowledge as soon as they talked to the press so if you want to prosecute one of them go for it.

What is the story behind Wilson leaking her identity? Do you have any sources for that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

The executive branch has classification authority. They can set what is and is not classified information at will per executive orders 12958 and 13292

You're exactly right. But did he? And, can the President retroactively declassify information? Does his declassification go into effect on the date it's signed, or whichever date he chooses even if it's in the past? I think it should go into effect on the day it's signed or later, because there's already too much "retroactive immunity" BS going on for my taste.

section eight · 07-18-08, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian

This is an abuse of the word "disclose" as there was no intent to communicate to the Cubans. If someone pulls down your pants are you "disclosing" the color of your underwear? I think not.

I wasn't saying they did it on purpose but the point is her cover was blown long before Novak published that article.

Quote:

I don't claim to represent Simon here, but this a ridiculous take. An employee of the government is not necessarily acting with authority of the government. Under this interpretation anyone could out any operative they want and be immune to prosecution simply because they are employed by the government.

No that's not it at all, the person who originally leaked it would be held criminally liable, the whole point of section 422 is to demonstrate that once someone's cover is blown then it can't be blown again thus even if Rove did leak it after Armitage he can't be held criminally liable because she had already been outted. Once the cat's out of the bag it's out of the bag.

1069 · 07-18-08, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Valerie Plame was a slut and a traitor. She got what she deserved. She got passed around CIA HQ like a party favor.

You're resentful because a woman who looks like her would never **** you; not for love or money.
I know your type.

section eight · 07-18-08, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Come on, I was drawing a metaphor and you know it.

Well I don't want to get caught up into hypotheticals and metaphors I'm just going to stick with the relevant statute, there are other portions of Title 50 which deal with classified information besides the identity of agents.

Quote:

You keep quoting this but I don't think you're reading it the same way I am, because I think it fully supports what I've been saying. The wording is tricky, so it could mean either of these:

A. the United States had revealed the intelligence relationship
B. the United States had publicly revealed the intelligence relationship

I'm assuming B, and I guess you're assuming A. Cascadian is right, we need a legal precedent.

Well even so wouldn't leaking it to the press be considered publicly revealing it?

Quote:

Which is why I brought up the nuclear secrets metaphor. If nuclear secrets were leaked to China, that shouldn't automatically mean it's ok for the information to become public knowledge. Even if the leak does make it to public knowledge, like the existence of NSA for example, it's still illegal for officials who have that knowledge to reveal it to anyone else who'se not authorized to have it.

Ya but nuclear secrets are a bit different than intelligence assets, because once a cover is blown it will no longer be safe to put them in the field anywhere not just the country which the intel was leaked to, and again this leads me to my 2nd point IE once it was leaked to the press that would certainly constitute as a public disclosure.

Quote:

Not quite, I think it became public knowledge when Novak published his article to the world.

That hasn't been the argument used to go after Rove, the argument has been that the offense was committed as soon as Novak was informed of Plame's identity whether Novak decided to run with the story or not is irrelevant.

Quote:

But, it had not been publicly revealed or acknowledged by the government, and so officials still had a legal obligation to keep their mouths shut. One leak from one person to one other person doesn't make it public knowledge, and it doesn't let anyone else off the hook for leaking it further. Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of classifying information in the first place.

Oh come on once it was leaked to the press (not just Novak BTW) the cat was out of the bag.

Quote:

Like I said in the OP. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. Armitage was one, so who was the other? I'm not saying there was a crime, I'm saying there may have been a crime depending on whether that 2nd person knew (s)he was giving Robert Novak classified information.

The 2nd source was Rove and he only confirmed what Armitage had said, IE he answered a direct question from Novak.

Quote:

What is the story behind Wilson leaking her identity? Do you have any sources for that?

When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light

Simon W. Moon · 07-18-08, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

No that's not it at all, the person who originally leaked it would be held criminally liable, the whole point of section 422 is to demonstrate that once someone's cover is blown then it can't be blown again ...

This is an overblown interpretation. This is not what it says. IT says that when the govt officially and intentionally comes out and says, "Yeah, so-and-so was a covert agent. " [Like has happened w/ Valerie Wilson since].
It was not the govts intent nor desire that VW's affiliation with the CIA be made public. Therefore, Armitage's slip-up, he was a part of his authorized actions.
The mistake of one person is not the same as an official decision and position of the USG.