BULL SHIT -- NY Times you still suck!!!

[libertypirate]

Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25leak.html?ei=5094&en=56e9496be92c9d2a&hp=&ex=1130299200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1130213060-A/kNt/kytzje/nXtCzMBWg

ANALYSIS OF 18 USC 794(b)

18 USC 794(a) sets a difficult test for the prosecution, but 794(b) sets forth a much easier test for the prosecution to meet while still providing a maximum sentence of the death penalty when this section is breached "in a time of war":

"(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

Let's simplify that.

With respect to the outing of Valerie Plame and her CIA network, 794(b) mandates prosecution of anybody who, in a time of war, intentionally communicates information relating to the public defense which might be useful to the enemy. And the maximum punishment for such a violation of 794(b) is death or life in prison.

The Bush Administration most fears 794(b). It simply requires the perpetraitors to be cognizant that the "information" being "communicated" "might be useful to the enemy".

Furthermore, "the enemy" is a much broader term than "foreign nation". As the President has said many times, the enemy is the terrorists.

I think we can all agree that CIA agents and their investigations involved with weapons of mass destruction are related to "the public defense", so that standard is easily met as well.

That just leaves the intent requirement, which is easy to establish under this fact pattern since the statute only requires "intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy."

Please note that the statute does not require the perp to communicate directly to the enemy, 794(b) only requires that the perp intends for the information to be communicated to the enemy.

Since Karl Rove and others intended that the information be communicated to Novak and other reporters, the perps will not be able to deny that they had knowledge such information would be published to the world, a world in which the enemy resides, an enemy that has access to Novak's report.

To prove the necessary "intent" under 794(b), Fitzgerald only has to present sufficient evidence that Rove and others knew the enemy would have access to the main stream media at the time they communicated information relating to the public defense to Novak and/or other reporters.

It's laughable to imagine the perpetraitors will argue that the enemy wouldn't have access to the information reported by Novak to the world. To such a defensive argument the court in Morison stated:

"Finally, the danger to the United States is just as great when this information is released to the press as when it is released to an agent of a foreign government. The fear in releasing this type of information is that it gives other nations information concerning the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. That fear is realized whether the information is released to the world at large or whether it is released only to specific spies."

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

[Catherine Vincent]

1. It is bullshit. Undercover is undercover.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Kristoff doesn't think it's such a big deal. nt

[Halliburton]

3. he hates America

[upi402]

4. enemy= "you're either with us, or you're against us"

Furthermore, "the enemy" is a much broader term than "foreign nation". As the President has said many times, the enemy is the terrorists.
Bushit is ensnared in his own definitive statement again;

[wtmusic]

5. They won't be charged with 18 USC 794(b)

18 USC 794(b) is the Federal Espionage statute.

They will be charged under 50 USC 421 -- "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources"

Treason will not stick. No Way.

[upi402]

6. So no executions?

I sure hope they don't get lethal injections.

[wtmusic]

7. Possibly after war crimes charges

Patience, patience.

http://www.bringhonorback.org

[leveymg]

9. No, they won't be charged under the IIPA. They will w/obstruction USC 1001

False statements (Cheney, who wasn't sworn) or Perjury (Libby, Rove and the others who were sworn). Libby may get off on a plea agreement if Fitz takes Cheney down.

WOO HOO! :woohoo:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a1Q4b0Hy7Ikc&refer=top_world_news
Cheney, Libby May Be at Odds Over CIA Leak-Case Investigation

Oct. 25 (Bloomberg) -- A fissure may be opening between Vice President Dick Cheney and his top aide over the investigation into the leak of a covert CIA agent's identity.

I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, first learned of agent Valerie Plame's identity in a conversation with Cheney weeks before her name became public in July 2003, the New York Times reported last night, citing lawyers involved in the case.

The disclosure doesn't indicate that the vice president did anything wrong, said a senior Republican with ties to Cheney. The person declined to make a similar statement about Libby.

The senior Republican, who spoke on condition of anonymity, sought to portray Cheney as uninvolved in any violation of a 1982 law forbidding the revelation of a covert intelligence agent's identity. The official noted that both Cheney and Libby had the security clearances necessary to discuss Plame's identity.

The Times report focuses new attention on Cheney's role in an affair that holds serious legal and political jeopardy for top officials in President George W. Bush's administration. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is nearing the end of a 22- month investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing in the leaking of Plame's identity and is believed to be considering indictments against top White House officials, including Libby and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.

The Times said it based its account on Libby's notes from a June 12, 2003, meeting between him and Cheney. According to lawyers involved in the case who described Libby's notes to the Times, they indicate Cheney got his information about Plame from George Tenet, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

[upi402]

12. Cheney was under oath -no?

Didn't the Times report that Cheney was under oath?

[leveymg]

13. Yes - previous reports had said Cheney wasn't sworn

Makes no difference as far as IIPA is concerned. The effect is that Cheney now stands vulnerable to perjury as opposed to obstruction of justice charges. Both carry a 5 year potential prison sentence.

[libertypirate]

10. If they want to make their jobs harder, then yes they would use 421...

Then the prosecutor would have to prove that it was their intention to leak the information...

Work harder or smarter?

Which would you choose? To have to prove the intention of the leak, or just go with the one that says any leaking of the information is criminal?

[wtmusic]

14. Depends completely on the evidence

Neither of us knows which is "smarter" yet

[Birthmark]

8. Isn't lying to the FBI a crime?

How about Obstruction of Justice? I know that the Repubs were real big on that one a few years back.

Cheney = Toast

[WA98296]

11. Thanks for the lesson in USC,...does the Patriot Act change/add anything?

That might make things worse for these "people"?