Media Talking Point: Outing Plame was Not Illegal

[Dr Fate]

There are some talking points going around that what was done to Plame is not technicaly illegal.

I've seen some of the arguments in editorials. I could be wrong, but these arguments seem to rely on misrepresentations of what really ocurred.

In a nutshell, what are the best arguments for both sides?

Is there a good argument that what happened was perfectly legal?

Some links or actual law that anyone dug up would be great.

[mourningdove92]

1. Legal Schmegal

Smirk said he would fire anyone involved. I want to see him do it.

[Dr Fate]

2. I understand the politcs- I want the legal schmegal stuff.

n/t

[obreaslan]

12. What does...

Smeagol have to do with it? :)

[papau]

3. TWO laws violate - the 80's law may be too technical - or not -but

the WW1 law is clear on the simple act of leaking classified material.

The Bush Plane trip and the (Sec of State's staff) memo being read by everyone on board plus the memo saying Ms. Wilson was a forbidden topic would seem to meet the 80's law criteria.

[Dr Fate]

4. What about all this "she was not on assignment and covert" business

Seems to me that excuse twists the actual facts- but what do you know about that media talking point?

[mmonk]

5. Makes no difference

[Dr Fate]

7. Errr- details? Argument? Pretty please?

???

[mmonk]

14. She has worked covertly

in a CIA front company. She was exposed. Agents from other countries around the world I'm sure immediately began traces and contacts. Once exposed, an agent can be in danger. The front company exposed is in danger along with all associated with it. All foreign contacts with her or the front company are in danger. All operations of that front company become compromised. She nor any agents involved can be used covertly anymore.

[RaulGroom]

6. It would be easier to respond

If you'd post some links. I've been following this story closely and know the statutes pretty well, so if you can point me to the statements I can try to deal with them.

[Dr Fate]

9. Sure- and thanks in advance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11

[rateyes]

17. Washington Post...

trying to protect Novak.

[papau]

10. good point :-) Indeed a Fox News Victoria Toensing article !! :-)

The Fox News Victoria Toensing article was shown to be a lie long ago!

:-)

[papau]

8. Yes - she had 40 some folks plus ran a fake company at the time

of the outing.

Indeed the fake company outing alone caused changes in overseas relationships.

It will take a Republican Judge to say that you can not be covert overseas from a desk in Virgina - indeed the clock counting even with that interpretation does not work without a Republican Judge.

[Dr Fate]

11. Are you saying that she does not need to be physically overseas...

...but since folks under her were, that counts?

[papau]

15. The statue was applied to fellow who caused the80's death of a

station chief overseas - and that fellow plead quilty. That is the only case on record.

I have no clue how the words would apply in a GOP judges court in a contested case.

As to English interpretation of the words, IMHO the statue applies to Cheney/Scooter.

[jbonkowski]

19. Yes, for five years..

..after a NOC (non-official cover i.e. secret) agent comes home, the fact of their employment at the Agency is kept secret under law.

This is to protect any other agents or local sources who were working with them overseas.

All other Agency employees who also worked at the overseas front company with Plame were also outed at the same time (especially the ones who still were working there), as well as any locals who regularly met with them. So, revealing her name endangered overseas agents and operations, even if she was "safely sitting at a desk in Langley, VA."

[rateyes]

13. There is more than a violation of the law

against outing a CIA agent here. There is a violation of the Espionage Act. US Code 18, Sec. 793 and 794.

Summarizing this law: If you share classified information that can harm the national security of the US with any person not authorized to have it, you are guilty of espionage against the country, an act of treason, which in this case, as to my reading of 794 could draw the death penalty, since the info in question deals with WMD.

If you receive classified info, even though you are not allowed to have it, and then you share it, you too are guilty of espionage. The most likely penalty, however, for these rogues should they be found guilty and not receive a presidential pardon would be the 10 years in prison and the hefty fine.

18USC793--here:

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=10182180782+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

18USC794---here:

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=10197711134+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Also, if you know that someone has committed such crime and try to cover it up--Bush? Cheney? you too get classified as a spy, even though you may not have seen the classified info. Per sec. 792 of same code:

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=101794514232+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

-----------------------------

All of this means that Miller, Cooper, Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell (who was the one who brought the classified info on AF1 on Bush's trip to Africa) Novak, anyone who received the info and passed it on to unauthorized persons, can be indicted, convicted and sentenced.

If Fitzgerald is considering this law, and not just the "outing" law that RWers want to talk about as "technically" not being broken, then the house of cards is coming down. Fitz will turn into "Monty Hall" and they all will be playing "Let's Make a Deal."

[papau]

16. God - I hope Fitz is using that law!

:-)

[rateyes]

18. The revealing of the classified information...

shut down a CIA front company that was infiltrating in dangerous places...it put every employee working there in danger, and compromised national security. ESPIONAGE & TREASON are the words of the day.

[Vickers]

20. I'm sure Fitzgerald would not have pursued things if it was legal

:eyes:

[xkenx]

21. That's Crapola

Long ago, in a past life, I worked on Govt. contracts for a defense contractor. I had a security clearance. I doubt that things have changed. Here's what they drummed into us about security laws:
a. Your security clearance entitles you to receive classified materials ONLY ABOUT WHICH YOU HAVE A NEED TO KNOW.
b. If you possess such classified materials (and they are always clearly marked as with the State Dept. memo distributed on Air Force One), you may share them ONLY with people you have verified
1. to have the same or higher security clearance AND
2. have a specific NEED TO KNOW the information being received.

ANYTHING ELSE, and you have committed a security violation. Period.

[depakid]

22. It was clearly illegal

and anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand criminal law- or is simply lying. Take your pick:

Here's a great article that'll tell you exactly why.

How to Prosecute the Plame Case
by Elizabeth de la Vega

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0812-22.htm

Elizabeth de la Vega has recently retired after serving more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Minneapolis and San Jose. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

[Cha]

23. Sounds Treasonous to me.

Since when is treason not illegal?