Was it a crime to out Valerie Plame? Need a definitive answer

[Ksec]

Seriously, Ive been seeing the talking heads saying there was no crime committed. So once and for all. Is it a crime to out a CIA agent ? Was a crime committed when they outed Plame?

[RoyGBiv]

1. Yes. n/t

[merbex]

2. There is an interesting experiment for them: try outing another one

and see what happens

Even better: have a Democrat out a CIA agent and see what happens

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Yes, dammit.

It's a crime to out a CIA agent, especially a NOC. It's a crime to expose HUMINT networks by said outing. It's a crime to expose a CIA front company like Brewster-Jennings. It's a goddamned crime, and all the idiot talking heads in the world don't change that one iota.

[The Doctor.]

4. Lol... serious?

The question is this;

Was there an asset named 'Brewster, Jennings & Associates' before she was outed?

Where was it afterwards?

[salinen]

5. George Sr.

says it is.

[dchill]

15. Right, but he also said...

"Read my lips: no new taxes."

[Vincardog]

6. There was a crime committed before during and after they outed Valerie.

The talking heads want to talk about the special law that Poppy Bu$h signed. That is complicated and may or may nat apply. The crime committed by aWoL and his crones is TREASON. Look in the Constitution.

[Mist]

7. The CIA thinks it is. They started the original investigation.

Also, prosecuting attorneys and grand juries aren't brought in to investigate and try a "non-crime."

[kestrel91316]

14. Not only did the CIA believe a crime had been committed, but

Fitz undoubtably looked this up in the law books before pursuing a grand jury investigation for TWO YEARS.

[Jacobin]

8. Criminal statutes only apply to democrats, not republicans

That's what the talking heads are really saying.

[Lithos]

9. Yes a crime was committed

The crime was the leak of the agent's identity from the Whitehouse which is in violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This act makes provisions for the admission of any intelligence agent by a member of the US government except under special conditions. These special conditions of course were not met. Because this was also a classified fact, there is also the issue of violating the security clearances.

Where the RW'ers try and obfuscate the issue is they say it was not a crime to print this. This is only true in that Novak was not in violation of this act nor was he in violation of security clearances (he has none). The Act and those regulations concerning control of secured intelligence covers the operation of the US Government and it's officials.

L-

[tulsakatz]

13. there is a good reason why this info is classified.......

....and why people need security clearance. If they can just tell anyone whatever they want, why the necessity for a security clearance in the first place?

Of course, this is against the law!! The Republicans are just trying to blame it on someone else. You know them, they're not accountable to anyone! They've been lying to us for 2 yrs and still would be if Fitzgerald had not uncovered the evidence!!!

[MsUnderstood]

10. Help us all out

Cite for us where in the constitution or federal laws it is illegal to out the CIA agent...not cause I'm trying to flame (I AM NOT!) but so when we hear the bull$hit of it isn't a crime we can cite some legalese to shut em up!

[Lithos]

11. Here

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

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.)

[Ksec]

12. Now thats what Im talkin about !

There it is in Black and freakin White.

Thanks everyone . Im gonna print this doc up and throw it in the face of this freeper that I argued with abut this. Good job.