In Leak Case, Reporters Lack Shield For Sources

Washington Post ^ | 11-29-04 | Charles Lane

[Snapple]

One intriguing possibility, noted by several lawyers familiar with the case, is that Novak may have invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that Fitzgerald has not yet chosen to give him immunity from prosecution to compel his testimony.

[Terabitten]

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

Did Novak have any authorized access to such classified info? If not, this particular statute seems not to apply.

[Southack]

Lies. Schuer's book Imperial Hubris *specifically* leaks internal, classified Agency assessments of Bin Laden.

That it was "approved" by the CIA hierarchy just goes to show that the entire organization is out of control. That the book was deliberately published during the 2004 election campaign in an attempt to influence the outcome just goes to show that a treasonous coup was only narrowly averted.

Schuer isn't the first leaker, either. Plame leaked her own name, among other things. Wilson certainly leaked, though as a temporary contractor one can't pin 100% of his blame onto the CIA. No doubt there are numerous other rogues there, too.

Not a month goes by that some paper somewhere isn't citing some *anonymous* source for critical leaks.

But that you would deny that the freakin' book by Schuer isn't a leak just goes to show how far in the tank you are for your friends there.

[Southack]

"You keep spelling his name wrong. I am not a kid. I have grandchildren. It is not treason for a government employee to dissent from the president of the US during an election. That is called democracy, not treason. "

On the contrary, it is treason to leak classified Agency assessments in an attempt to overthrow a sitting President.

...And I call you "kid" because that's your state of mind, not your biological age. You'd defend your CIA buddies to the end.

Well, that end is near.

[Wolfstar]

...the obvious trollness of it all...

The last sentence from her (or his? -- internet anonymity) #15 was the tip off to me. To wit:

"Instead, he apparently hired a criminal lawyer. Not a good sign."

That sly little contrivance from a supposed journalist tied "treason" to "criminal lawyer." Cute.

[Snapple]

The author of Imperial Hubris is allowed to influence the election, as is any citizen. It is called free speech, not treason, and is protected by the Constitution.

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

does not say anything against publishing a book based on uncalssified information and opinions.

As for Plame, if you check the law, she is allowed to out herself. I wouldn't do it, but it's not a crime:

(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 602, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)

[Southack]

"The author of Imperial Hubris is allowed to influence the election, as is any citizen. It is called free speech, not treason, and is protected by the Constitution."

No, he's not. It's the Intelligence equivalent of Insider Trading.

If a CIA agent tells you to "buy oil," and you do, just before a CIA operation shuts off oil deliveries for a month, then that agent has given you a *conclusion* based upon classified information.

Such conclusions and assessments are *illegal* to divulge. This is not a free speech issue. Active, on payroll CIA Agents like Scheuer (at that time) do *not* have free speech in regards to classified data, assessments, or even their own conclusions drawn from such material. All of the above are forbidden fruit.

Scheuer partook of that forbidden fruit. He gave assessments, and made them public, based upon his classified work at the CIA.

And he did so in order to illegally influence an election by overthrowing our sitting government.

That's treason. That's our CIA today.

[Snapple]

I copied the wrong part.

Look at the paragraph C. This could cover a journalist, but appears to refer more to people who make a practice of leaking the identities of agents. Mr. Novak says that when he asked the CIA if he could publish this they said NO but didn't say it strongly enough. Of course, as they say, NO means NO!

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

(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.)

[Snapple]

The laws about classified information are written. You can't prosecute people for doing what you consider analogous to another situation. The laws about leaking are very definite.

The book went through the legal process. The guy has committed no crime.

I have read the book. It is largely based on his analysis of what Bin Laden says in published materials. He has his footnotes in the book and the sources are published sources.

[Snapple]

You mean that Plame outed herself?

This is specifically not against the law.

(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an
individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a
covert agent.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 602, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)

[Southack]

"The book went through the legal process. The guy has committed no crime."

More lies from you. The book of leaks was approved by the CIA itself. That doesn't make it legal. The book included *conclusions* drawn from Agent Scheuer's classified work while at the CIA on the taxpayers' payroll.

Adding a textual "disclaimer" that says that said Bin Laden agent only used public sources is *not* a get out of jail card. It does *not* indemnify Scheuer.

Scheuer partook of forbidden fruit. He published conclusions and assessments from his classified CIA work.

He thinks that he can claim "public sources" and get away with his treason. It won't work.

Nor will the wonks who approved his book escape unscaithed. We're doing some house-cleaning, and the traitors at the CIA are getting thrown out with the trash...though that's somewhat insulting to plain old everyday trash itself...

[Southack]

"You mean that Plame outed herself? This is specifically not against the law."

It's still a leak.

[Snapple]

These are not lies. These are facts you are unhappy with.

The CIA vetted the book. The author is off the hook, and he is not being prosecuted for treason.

The author does not have to agree with the administration's public assessments of Bin Laden.

Indeed, it is good to have some different points of view.

[cyncooper]

You mean that Plame outed herself?

No, that's not what I mean.

I mean she was obviously working to undermine the Bush administration by supporting her husband's lies about his trip to Niger.

[Snapple]

In your book it's a leak. In the eyes of the law it appears to be legal.

CIA guys know the law about protecting the identities of agents.

I am reminded of a very angry KGB agent who once said of a dissident who had written a book that embarrassed the regime, "this criminal is so clever that he doesn't break the law."

[Southack]

"The CIA vetted the book. The author is off the hook, and he is not being prosecuted for treason."

Scheuer is specifically *not* off of the hook. What he did was illegal, and what the CIA did as an Agency by approving that book for pre-vote publication is very much still at play.

Nor is it the CIA who determines what is legal or not.

People like you just go to prove that the CIA is so wildly out of control that it requires sycophants to defend its illegal behavior to the end.

So be it.

[Southack]

"In your book it's a leak. In the eyes of the law it appears to be legal."

What judge or jury disagrees with me and agrees with you?

The CIA is not a judge or jury, by the way.

[Snapple]

What section of the US Code did the author violate?

You can't. The author has not been arrested for any crime.

He is protected by very specific laws that he followed very carefully.

As the KGB says, "This criminal is so cunning that he didn't break the law."

[Snapple]

One intriguing possibility, noted by several lawyers familiar with the case, is that Novak may have invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that Fitzgerald has not yet chosen to give him immunity from prosecution to compel his testimony. (WP cited article)

[Snapple]

The CIA may not be a judge or jury, but they have piles of lawyers who check books to make sure that nothing classified is leaked.