Libby's Defense Could Be -----

[AnnInLa]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/16/112238/93

Miller's Security Clearance

By Ivo Daalder | bio

From: America Abroad
Having now waded through The Times's articles on Judy Miller, one new fact struck me as particularly bizarre -- Miller, by her own admission, was cleared to see secret information as part of her assignment as an "embedded" reporter in Iraq.

I had no idea journalists could receive security clearances -- and I had no idea that the mainstream media would allow their reporters to have such clearances. After all, one of the most important obligations of a person receiving security clearances is not to reveal that information at any time, while one of the most important obligations of a reporter is precisely to reveal information the public has a need and right to know.

Can someone explain why this glaring conflict of interest is acceptable? And does anyone know whether Miller's clearance was an exception or whether this is a common practice in journalistic circles, be it today or in the past? And, finally, as I note below the fold, could it be that this fact becomes the key to Libby's defense?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/16/112238/93

[panader0]

1. Don't give 'em any ideas

[writes2000]

2. Great points. Why did Miller have that clearance?

That said, Cooper did not have a clearance. Rove doesn't have that excuse.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Miller is bsing

Yes, she had to have some level of security clearance to be an inbed in Iraq because you are going to know exactly what your groups mission is, where you are and where you are going, etc. It does not mean that you would automatically have security clearance anywhere else other then the battlefield while you are embedded. People like Judy and Scooter know the difference.

[napi21]

4. ANYONE who is granted security clearance has the obligation

of non disclosure unless the information is declassified! It doesn't matter if they are a gov't worker or a reporter!

Could Libby use that as an excuse? Sure. But that would put the guilt on Judy for releasing classified info. Im not sure he wants to do that! How many OTHER things does Judy know, about other things, that Libby and the Admin. really doesn't want out there?

There's way too much that is unknown about this entire mess. Everything we do now is speculation. I think the best thing to do is to wait for Fitz. We are talking less than 2 week time!

[leveymg]

5. It would be key to a defense of a charge under the IIPA

It appears that Miller played the roll of cut-out for conveying classified information within WHIG. The Plamegate conspiracy seems to have been structured so as to avoid prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIAP).

If Libby and the others could make a plausible claim that their source was Miller, and only Miller -- and that they didn't have access to classified documents revealing Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative prior to her identity being revealed -- then, they might not be liable to prosecution under the IIPA.

In addition, if Libby could claim that he believes Miller had a proper security clearance and was thus authorized to receive classified information, he might avoid prosecution under the IIPA.

This is what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 says:

"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 received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. ."

To figure out the elements that must be proved, you simply break this run-on sentence into subparts in the following manner:

A defendant must:

(1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

(2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

(3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

(4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent (PRESUMABLY BY REFERENCE TO AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, SUCH AS A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT - IF THE SOURCE IS LESS THAN AUTHORITATIVE (PLAME) THEN THEY MIGHT GET AWAY WITH IT BY CLAIMING THEY THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A RUMOR BEING SPREAD BY A REPORTER); and

(5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

Proof of these five elements -- and no less -- is required for a conviction under IIPA.

HOWEVER - Fitzgerald is not going to prosecute Libby, Rove and the others for direct violation of the IIPA. He'll instead get them for perjury, and obstruction of justice.

[Clark2008]

6. Deep background.

Reporters HAVE to have a certain amount of security clearance just to even enter portions of military and federal-contracted facilities to do their jobs. For example, I had security clearance to go to Oak Ridge National Labs (and still have to get clearance to visit when I go there for my current job in marketing). When a reporter covers a particular beat, he or she may need security clearance to even enter facilities they need to enter regularly to gather information.

They may also need security clearance to view sourced information that they can use as deep background for a better understanding on how to write the full story without having to reveal the particular information they learned on deep background. It's a similar situation as really protecting a source - you may reveal some or all of what the source told you without revealing the source.

Having said all that, the point of this is lost on Judith Miller. Judith wasn't protecting a source, she was protecting a criminal. The minute the "source" outed the CIA agent, Valerie Plame, then the source became a criminal. Quite a different kettle of fish then just whisteblowing or tipping a reporter.

Miller is a shill and, in my opinion as former journalist, a plant of some ilk. She isn't writing objective articles to inform the public, but, rather, cheerleading a particular postion that should be reserved for the editorial pages.

[rocktivity]

7. DING DING DING! Clark2008, you're our grand prize winner!

...Judith wasn't protecting a source, she was protecting a criminal...
AND she waited until the criminal gave her permission to reveal who he was! Why in the world would she protect somebody who tried to make her an accessory to treason? That's the one question you HAVEN'T answered, Judy!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Neil Lisst]

8. If we look at her report today, it's clear that the Prosecutor ...

If we look at her report today, it's clear that the Prosecutor asked Miller if Libby asked her about her clearance. I think she testified he did not. That might cut off his ability to use that line of escape.