Exposing the (media's) Plame case mistake (proof under law much easier )

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-delavega12aug12,0,6658332.story?track=tottext

Exposing the(media's) Plame case mistake (proof under law much easier than said)
The pundits say the law that protects covert agents' identities won't put anybody away in this investigation. Here's why they're wrong.
By Elizabeth de la Vega
ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA recently retired after more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Northern California. A longer version of this article appears on the website www.TomDispatch.Com.

August 12, 2005

PUNDITS RIGHT, left and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 because it imposes an impossibly high standard. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, described the 1982 act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Numerous other columnists have nodded their heads smugly in agreement.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong, and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

Before presenting any case, a prosecutor like special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame case has to figure out "the elements of the crime." Parties can argue about whether the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but neither side can add, delete or modify the elements even slightly to suit their arguments. Why? Because they come from the exact wording of the statute. <snip>

[Rose Siding]

1. This is an important article!

Again, the media has fed us the WH line.

A 20 year vet fed prosecutor sure as hell knows this law better than media parrots!

[Igel]

2. Most people haven't argued intent to harm.

Just whether or not it can be proven that the leakers knew the information was classified.

She's not arguing against a straw man, I'm sure people have argued what she's arguing against. Somewhere.