google's your friend. i don't know if this is the only relevant statute, but it's the one most often cited.
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.
i shouldn't have to post the entire statute, i'm sure you can read through it yourself and reach your own conclusions.
People in the WH had such access and intentionally disclosed information that identified Plame to Novak, who I seriously doubt has top-secret clearance. Anyone who had access to her identity would also have been aware of her covert status, given that it was the CIA (in the person of Tenet) who reported the violation to the Justice Department for investigation. Thank you for helping to prove what we have been saying all along.
That sure seems to be what you did. Unfortunately, it appears that your conclusions include stuff that you just made up.
Just so we can be clear, here is the only place where it talks about intent to injure the US... Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses (a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual-- (1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection; or (2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection. The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies-- (A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and (B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this section, to the period after the date of conviction or after September 26, 1961, whichever is later. (b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 1, 1954: (1) An offense within the purview of-- (A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794 (gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18; (B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18; (C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities) of title 18; (D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954; (E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or That section is saying that if a person has intent to injure the US that they will not be eligible to receive pensions from the government after such offense. It says nothing about that being required to secure a conviction under the statute. A swing and a miss!
the statute is pages long- i posted one relevant part. nitpick all you want- the proof is in the (lack) of the pudding.
i'm delighted to discover such an expert on the intelligence identities protection act on a basketball bbs. if mr. fitzgerald returns an indictment against someone in the white house, i will happily eat my words. if he doesn't, will you? of course, for you it's relatively low risk, since it's much harder to prove a dispositive, ie, the absence of an indictment. however, if you'll go back and read the opening article, you'll note that some other folks on your side of the ideological divide are beginning to have their doubts about the case, and i suspect they've got people on retainer who are better versed in case law than even you.
Pudding ingredients... Someone leaked Plame's name to Novak, an action which is a felony. Most of the people with access to that information and motive to leak work in the WH. The offense was so egregious that the CIA director brought the case to the Justice Department for investigation. The Justice Department referred the case to a special prosecutor. A grand jury has been convened in the case. _________________________________________ For something with such a "lack" of substance, a great many actions have taken place that would indicate that a crime has been committed at a pretty high level. Stick your head back in the sand, stop embarrassing yourself.
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. As was stated in the article and rehashed time after time by FB among others, the "doubts about the case" are the result of media organization's lawyers trying to keep their sources anonymous, not because anyone in those organizations doubts the veracity of the accusations.
no, it's not always. read the statute. yeah, the fine print says it is OK as long as you are doing it as part of a political vendetta.
An indictment may never come due to stonewalling, but that does not change the fact that a felony was committed. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, if you find a dead body with a knife it the back, a felony has been committed even if nobody is ever indicted. This is the same type of situation. We know that someone leaked the name of an undercover operative that the CIA was actively keeping undercover (thus Tenet referring the case to the Justice Department). That is a felony.
A felony has been committed even if the dead body was someone that was trying to kill you or your family? Not commenting on Plame, but, in general, just because it looks like a felony has been committed doesn't mean a felony has been committed.
