Little-Tested Law Is Used Against Journalists in Leak

[DoYouEverWonder]

October 10, 2004

In 1974, a magazine called Counter Spy identified Richard Welch as the C.I.A. station chief in Athens. Eighteen months later, he was shot to death outside his home there.

Whether the magazine helped set the stage for Mr. Welch's murder, by a terrorist group called November 17, has never been established. But the practice of exposing covert intelligence agents, which became something of a cottage industry in the 1970's, certainly led to enactment of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 1982.

That law, all but unused in the intervening decades, is today the basis for a grand jury investigation into the disclosure last year of the identity of Valerie Plame as a covert agent for the Central Intelligence Agency. It was the subject of intense debate in the early 1980's, with many arguing that it would damage the ability of journalists to report the news.

<snip>

The law has two main parts. One makes it a crime for people with authorized access to classified information - government officials, not journalists - to identify covert agents. The other part applies to people without such authorized access, like journalists. People in that second group can be punished only if they engage in a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents" knowing "that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."


edit: add link

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/politics/10leak.html?oref=login

[Rose Siding]

1. Will you post the link, please? This is interesting...

That the second part of the law is explained in detail gives me hope that Novak is a subject of the investagation.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Oops, done

see above

[mhr]

2. So It Will Work Against The Bush Administration And The Publishers

eom

[Seabiscuit]

6. It will if the prosecutor does his job and enforces that law against Novak

and his ilk. Here's the link:

http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

Here's the pertinent language:

"TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, 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, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)"

It seems to me that section (b), not section (c) applies to Novak and his ilk. It pertains to disclosure by persons who *learn* the identities of covert agents. THERE IS NO NEED TO ESTABLISH A "PATTERN OF ACTIVITY" ON NOVAK'S PART.

Section (a) would apply to Cheney or anyone in Cheney's office who likely leaked the information to Novak.

ALL of these scoundrels should be imprisoned for 10 years under section (a), and five years under section (b).

Wouldn't it be wonderful to watch Cheney and Novak die while serving their just time in prison? I hope Kerry appoints an attorney general with the cajones of a Robert Kennedy to hang these bastards by their own petards.

[kiahzero]

9. Perhaps you should reread the law.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You are correct, however, that Novak is not covered by subsection (c).

[Seabiscuit]

10. What's your point?

Beyond agreeing with my point about subsection (c) not applying to people like Novak, all you did was copy section (b) without comment.

The key to the difference between sections (a) and (b) is the phrase "people who *learn*" and "*learns* the identity" (b) as opposed to (a) which emphasizes "*having or having had* access/authorized access".

The statute is not really well crafted. All three sections include the words you bolded. My point was that it appears Novak is covered by (b) as a result of the use of the word "learn", and the prosecutor doesn't have to prove (c) which involves a "pattern of activity", whatever that means. I also merely wanted to provide a link because the original poster didn't do so, and quote the statute because the original poster only mentioned two subsections when indeed there are three.

[Seabiscuit]

11. Correction

Subsection (c) does not include the words you bolded, but has a new element, "pattern of activity", which is undefined, but which I suspect is similar in some way to the language of the RICO statute, which would, it appears, make it more difficult to prosecute anyone who hasn't engaged in such disclosure more than once.

Journalists with contacts in the White House who know the identity of CIA covert agents may conceivably be construed to have "access" or perhaps even "authorized access" to such identities.

[kiahzero]

16. No one without a security classification has "authorized access." (n/t)

[Seabiscuit]

19. How do you know this?

Are you a judge who has ruled on this statute?

[KoKo]

12. Since Miller was a "stovepipe" from Chalabi...it seems that this

would apply to her...About Novak..many of us think he's been a CIA Special Op (Mockingbird or worse) for years.

But, there's enough on Miller and how she helped start an ivasion of Iraq that I can't blame Novak for. Miller sounds like she falls under this:
The law has two main parts. One makes it a crime for people with authorized access to classified information - government officials, not journalists - to identify covert agents. The other part applies to people without such authorized access, like journalists. People in that second group can be punished only if they engage in a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents" knowing "that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."

[Seabiscuit]

13. From this it appears

that subsection (c) applies to journalists. Perhaps someone should contact the prosecutor and find out what subsection he's using to go after journalists.

[kiahzero]

15. It's called "contempt of court."

Judge orders you to answer a question; you do not. You are in contempt of court. You go to jail.

[Seabiscuit]

17. I don't get it.

Why can't you post on topic?

I'm an attorney. I know what contempt of court is. That isn't the issue. I'm not a federal prosecutor and am not familiar with how the courts, or even the federal prosecutor's offic treats this particular statute, so I'm just raising questions about its language - it seems very poorly written to me.

[kiahzero]

14. Miller didn't engage in activities... she didn't print the info.

You don't break the law simply by being leaked to.

Your example of the Miller/Chalabi relationship isn't the non sequtur that it seems, as it is a useful contrast.

Imagine that instead of piping Miller bullshit information on WMDs in Iraq, Chalabi were giving her real information about covert agents. Miller would be prosecutable under subsection(c), since she routinely ran with the information Chalabi gave her.

[sangh0]

18. You're missing the point, IMO

The point being that Miller has information about a serious crime. Information that can't be acquired without subpeonaing journalists. While the press has been afforded some protections against having to reveal sources, the law has traditionally compelled journalists to testify when the info they have cannot be discovered any other way.

The point isn't that Miller committed a crime. It's that she has information about a crime that can't be discovered except by compelling her (and other journalists) to testify.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Judith Miller was a mouth piece for the neocons

She never checked her sources, and she bears the blame for the prowar hype that the American press engaged in.

If she goes to jail for not revealing her source for the Plame leak, I hope she rots in the same cell as Martha Steward.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Link?

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Little tested law

should be used against those who use little tested facts! It is the highest form of blind treason.

[wildeyed]

7. great article

I would have called it 'Plame Investigation for Dummies'. I have much interest in this subject, but with the volume of things going on in the world right now, it is hard to stay up on all subjects.

[nolabels]

8. I noticed her husband sees it more important to get rid of bushco

Than the tangible harm or deaths from what had happened might of caused. That should tell you about being a patriot, Mr Bush. This part of the Internets will last longer than your residence in D.C., you fraud.