SPREAD THE WORD--this may be the biggest source of pressure for certain drills to "GO LIVE"
*********************************************************************
Individuals within the Bush Administration revealed the identity of CIA operative, Valerie Plame in contravention of US statutes. But there has been an intentional misdirection in claiming that the law that was violated is "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" of 1982. The effective controlling law for Treasongate has been greatly ignored by the main stream media and the blogosphere. This article seeks to clarify the controlling law and how the PR shift from Global War against Terror has been recently shifted to Global Struggle against Extremism. The reason for the change in terminology links directly to the case of treason that is being assembled by the Special Prosecutor and the Federal Grand Jury in Chicago. Now it seems that this revealing information is not being picked up by the blogs and certainly, not by the mainstream corporate news.

****************************

In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 1 and Part 2, I discussed the fact that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is virtually irrelevant as to the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. I focused on the applicability to this fact pattern of 18 USC 793 and 794, the espionage statutes of the United States Code.

Let's go back now, back to the beginning of this affair. Ever since this thing hit the news with gusto only equaled by Monica's dress, we have seen, heard and been witness to a main stream media and main stream blogosphere feeding frenzy of pundits politically analyzing the irrelevant IIPA. What a time they were having until Citizen Spook came along and outed their ruse.

And what timing that the AIPAC indictments should come out a few days after Citizen Spook published this analysis, (see TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and the shift from GWOT to GSAVE). Those indictments were based on 18 USC 793.

But more interesting and more juicy for the media is the simple application of 18 USC 794( which provided for the death penalty or life in prison for perpetraitors of espionage "in time of war".

We discussed the diplomatic policy shift from GWOT, global war on terrorism, to GSAVE, global struggle against violent extremism, and how that shift may be evidence of the Bush admin having worries about prosecution under the controlling espionage laws.

We discussed that 794( is met under this fact pattern of the Plame affair since it only requires that the information communicated by the perp be "related to the public defense" and that the perp must intend for that info to be communicated to the "enemy". We distinguished between the term "enemy" and the term "foreign nation" because "enemy" is much broader and does include "the terrorists".

We also discussed that federal case law has held that giving the relevant info to the press is no different than giving it directly to a spy for purposes of the intent requirement of that law.

So why hasn't the main stream media and most of the blogosphere picked up on this story?

BECAUSE THERE'S A MEDIA BLACKOUT IN PROGRESS

I submit that you may begin to "out" everybody in the media and blogosphere based upon their decision to cover 18 USC 794 or not to cover it.

Those who don't cover it, are knowingly or unknowingly, aiding and abetting treason. Coverage of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was exhaustive, from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the liberal blogs, the conservative blogs, etc. It was everywhere as the debate raged on about what was classified and who knew what at what time.

Crapola was fed to the masses. The IIPA is not the espionage act and does not lead to treason convictions. C'mon people, we have a little body of law which is called

THE UNITED STATES CODE!

Let's use it.

Many small web blogs did cover my report on 18 USC 794, and for that, we the people, owe them a debt of gratitude. The only main stream alternative web site which covered my report on 18 USC 794 and the death penalty was Jeff Rense. Rense had an entire section based upon TREASONGATE, which linked to four of my reports. That section has now been removed at rense.com. I don't know why, but I've written Jeff and asked him if there was a problem.

But here we have the biggest story in US history. Treason was perpetrated on this country by the White House. We know the memo listed Plame's ID as "secret" and that classification is prima facia proof of how important it was to national security. She was working on WMD. All of the requirements of 18 USC 794( have been met with much more convincing power than under the IIPA, so why has our very own United States Code been ignored?

It's frightening to finally see how deep the rabbit hole goes, isn't it.

This information, this law, this US Code, is not speculation or theory. This is the law and it's rock solid.

Where is the press now?
Where is the blogosphere?
Where is the feeding frenzy?
We had it for the IIPA, but for our very own US Code, it's gone, voila.

You knew the info is being controlled, but now you know that it's infected many of your favorite blogs and so called liberal journalists. We've given them a story here at Citizen Spook. Why aren't they running with it?

It's a simple Code, much easier to explain to the people than the IIPA, but it's not as easy to spin and argue about. It's clear, the White House is guilty as sin under 18 USC 794 (and 793) and the penalty is frightening to them.

Take over the blogs.
Take over the comments.
Write letters to the editor.

Where are the big time liberal pundits who are supposed to be fighting against this administration?

Where is the Conyers Blog?
Where is Raw Story?
Where is The Brad Blog?
Where is Daily Kos?
Where is The Huffington Post?
Where is Air America Radio?

Yes, the rabbit hole is deep, but it ends right here.

If the same amount of energy that went into the analysis of the IIPA was applied to 18 USC 794, the White House would be in serious trouble and would be forced to change their plans. They wouldn't have the same time they have now, time to create intricate diversions, time to commit more treason.

America, you have the means to fight this information war and you have the means to demand the media step up and tell the people what laws have been broken. And in doing this you can make them squirm, and you can force their hand and make them act with less time to plan. By exposing the truth, you force them to move faster, to rush their plans and in doing that they are more prone to make a mistake.

Nobody does anything as thorough when they are rushing, compared to when they have time to plot. By ignoring discussion about 18 USC 794 and the death penalty or life in prison, the main stream media and blogosphere are aiding and abetting the enemy by giving it time and resources to plot further treason.

The IIPA discussion was a calculated ruse designed to distract you from the real controlling law, 18 USC 793 and 794.

What are you going to do about it America?

Make some noise, make a lot of noise. If you don't, you have nothing to complain about when they survive this and thereafter bring you tyranny beyond your vision.

What doesn't kill them (by this I mean the law) makes them stronger. They destroyed a network of USA intelligence operations, operations that must have been getting close to uncovering treason worse than the treason they committed by outing Plame and Brewster Jennings et al.

This is war, people. There are no civilians in an information war. You're either for the truth and the law, or your against it.
******************************************************************
PART ONE
******************************************************************
TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff.

The controlling law for Treasongate has been greatly ignored by the main stream media and the blogosphere. This article seeks to clarify the controlling law.

To determine the controlling law, all one needs to do is read the non-disclosure agreement Karl Rove and all of the members of the Bush administration with security clearance signed which included the following statement:


"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(, Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982."

Sanctions for a breach of the non-disclosure agreement are provided for by Executive Order, but those sanctions are ancillary to the United States Code provisions cited in the paragraph above which stand alone.

Please notice that the Title 18 United States Code statutes are separate statutes that precede the first mention of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act". The complicated "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" of 1982 which has been exclusively discussed by the media is not controlling. Rove and company may be guilty of violating that act, but prior United States Code statutory law and Federal case law, specifically 18 USC 793 as interpreted by United States v. Morison (and related cases) has been breached and should lead to convictions under the facts known to the public at large. 18 USC 793 provides for a maximum of ten years in prison to those convicted under this statute.

Analysis of the law and precedent regarding 18 USC 793 indicates that the facts known to the public in the Plame case may be sufficient to guarantee convictions because the statute does not require that the information leaked be "classified". Certainly, the information leaked in the Plame case was classified as "SECRET" in a State Department memo circulated from and to White House staff, but that classification is not necessary for convictions under sections of Title 18 statutes.

18 USC 793 does not require that officials responsible for disclosing information about Valerie Plame had to know she was "covert" or under cover. Discussed in great detail below, the statute only requires that the information leaked be related to the national defense and that the individual responsible for disclosing that information have a reasonable belief that the information could be used to the detriment of the USA. Ths legal test is much easier to meet than the test put forth in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Furthermore, the highest courts in the USA that have studied this issue already address the defensive arguments forwarded in Treasongate. And it is clear that arguments which might stand a chance in a defense to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, will fail as a defense to charges brought under 18 USC 793, 794 and 641.

[If 18 USC 794 has also been breached, that statute provides a maximum sentence of the death penalty for those convicted "in a time of war". Analysis of 18 USC 794 and 18 U.S.C. @ 641 will be the subject of a future article by this author. The focus of this study will center upon 18 USC 793(d), which is the statute most likely to return convictions in the Plame matter. Sections 794 and 641 may also have been violated, but those issues are slightly more difficult to prove. Please note that in 2002, the Bush administration used 18 U.S.C. @ 641 to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about Drug Enforcement Administration files.]

It has been reported in various publications that a State Department memo was circulated among members of The White House staff indicating that the paragraph containing Valerie Plame's name was marked with an "[S]" meaning the information in that paragraph was classified as "Secret". EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, signed by President Bush on March 25, 2003 explains the various levels of classified information:

"2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized
disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. "

The classified State Department memorandum central to the federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a certain indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified.

18 USC 793(d) states:

"d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over,
or being entrusted with any document, writing...or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense which
information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, ....[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Part (e) states, "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to....", and is thereafter identical to section (d). (This section could possibly lead to a conviction of Novak as well and will be the subject of a future article.)

Please note that the statute does not require the information be "classified", it only requires that the info be related to "national defense".

Valerie Plame was working on weapons of mass destruction for the CIA. Nothing could be more related to national defense.

The application of this law has been clearly and concisely handled in United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 US 908, 109 S.Ct. 259, 102 L.Ed.2d 247 (1988). http://www.mtsu.edu/~lburriss/morison.html

John Ashcroft cited this case in his letter to Congress of October 22, 2003, "Although there is no single statute that provides criminal penalties for all types of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, unauthorized disclosures of classified information fall within the scope of various current statutory criminal prohibitions. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988)."

Samuel Loring Morison was charged with releasing copies of three photographs, classified "secret ", to Jane's Defense Weekly ("Jane's"), a British magazine. Count I of the Indictment charged that Morison wilfully caused the photographs, which allegedly related to the national defense, to be transmitted to a person not entitled to receive them, in violation of 18 U.S.C. @ 793(d).

The court stated: The relevant law under which Morison is charged in Counts I and III is found in 18 U.S.C. @ 793(d) and (e), part of a broader espionage statute. Section 793(d) provides that whoever, having authorized possession or control of a document or photograph, relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense, which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States, and who wilfully delivers it to any person not entitled to receive it,...is guilty of the offense..."

Notice the standard, "could be used to the injury of the United States". Obviously, "could" is a much broader standard than "would". In plain language, the statute says, if it was reasonably foreseeable that the information disclosed could possibly effect the national defense, the person responsible for the leak is guilty under the statute. Morison argued that the term 'national defense" was too vague, but the court didn't buy it, stating:

"Morison's first attack on Sections 793(d) and (e) is that the term "relating to the national defense" is impermissibly vague and fails to give fair warning of what documents are covered by the statute. This argument relies heavily on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 85 L. Ed. 488, 61 S. Ct. 429 (1941)...

The government has responded to this assertion by noting that the statute does contain an intent requirement, although not the same requirement that was contained in the Gorin statute. Sections 793(d) and (e) require that the acts be done "wilfully;" if the transmitted item is "information", "which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States"...

The government contends that if a defendant, "such as Morison, wilfully transmits photographs relating to the national defense to someone who is known by the defendant not to be entitled to receive it, the defendant has violated 793(d) no matter how laudable his motives." According to the plain language of the statute, the government's interpretation is correct. Thus, although there is an intent requirement, the "delimiting" intent to injure the United States is not present in this statute and defendant argues that it is therefore impermissibly vague. Unfortunately for the defendant's argument, the Fourth Circuit has addressed this issue and found that a similar statute was not unconstitutionally vague. In United States v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1978), the Fourth Circuit construed 18 U.S.C. @ 793(f),... "

PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE COURT'S FOLLOWING TWO PARAGRAPHS:

"As the District Court noted in Dedeyan, "certainly injury to the United States could be inferred from conduct of the sort charged," whether that conduct involves photographing documents by one foreign agent or release of national defense information to the press and public, where many foreign agents and governments can have access to the information.

In Dedeyan, the defendant was accused of knowing that the document had been abstracted by his cousin, a Russian spy, and failed to report it. Here, the situation is slightly different because it does not involve a foreign agent or the classic spy scenario. Rather, the defendant is accused of releasing classified information to the press, thus exposing that classified information to every foreign agent and government, hostile or not, in the world."

That is directly on point as to the leak of Plame's name to Novak and others.

The court's decision in Morison further 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."

The acquiescence to abide by the Government's determination of classified information of those who sign this agreement was discussed by the Morison Court:

"Defendant next argues that the phrase "not entitled to receive" is also unconstitutionally vague, in that it fails to inform a citizen of whether his conduct is prohibited... The government has responded by pointing out that under no circumstances is that statute unconstitutionally vague when applied to this defendant, who clearly knew by virtue of his security clearance and his signing of an agreement that classified information and documents were not to be transmitted to outsiders....Applying that same principle here, it seems clear that authorization to possess documents and entitlement to receive them may be determined by reference to the classification system under which the defendant worked. "

Clearly, Bush administration officials had knowledge that the Government's decision as to what is classified and what is not, could not be circumvented since they signed the non-disclosure agreement.

Those following the issues raised by the non-disclosure agreement should not get bogged down by the sanctions provided for in EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292 because the more serious legal breaches are contained in the United States Code which has a settled line of case law discussing everything the media pundits are now spinning.

The Morison Court continued the discussion:

"Congress has recognized the classification system and given its support to the determination by Executive Order of who is authorized to possess and who is not authorized to possess classified information,...

Since these executive orders are issued in fulfillment of the President's Constitutional responsibilities, they have the force and effect of law....The phrase "not entitled to receive" is not at all vague when discussed in reference with the classification system, which clearly sets out who is entitled to receive (those with proper security clearances and the "need to know") and Morison was certainly aware of the proscripts of the classification system. Defendant has argued that even if this construction is given to the statute, the statute is impermissibly vague because then an individual would be left to make the determination of who has the "need to know," and therefore the right to receive classification information. There can be no argument of such vagueness here, where the defendant released the information to Jane's, which had neither a security clearance or a need to know.... "

THE INTENT OF THE TREASONGATE LEAKERS IS IRRELEVANT

It matters not that Rove and others may claim they were just setting the record straight regarding details of Ambassador Wilson's trip. Regarding this type of defense, the Court in Morison stated:

"Morison urges that the requirement that acts be done wilfully translates to a requirement that they be done with some evil purpose and that if he acted with an intent to inform the public he did not have the requisite evil purpose. He urges this Court to adopt a construction of the word wilfully used in Hartzel v. United States, 322 U.S. 680, 686, 88 L. Ed. 1534, 64 S. Ct. 1233 (1944). In that case, the court, noting that the statute was a highly penal one restricting freedom of expression, held that the word "wilful" must be taken to mean "deliberately and with a specific purpose to do the acts proscribed by Congress." In another sentence, the Court referred to this "evil purpose;" however, in the rest of the opinion the court refers only to the specific intent to do the evil prohibited by the statute, i.e., causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, or mutiny. That case did not require"evil purpose" as the defendant reads it, but only required that the prohibited acts be done deliberately and with a specific purpose to do that which was prohibited. In Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d at 919, the court discussed the trial court's instruction that "wilfully" meant "not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's duties, but prompted by some personal or underhanded motive" and apparently approved such an instruction. It seems clear that the defendant here will not find much comfort in his defense that he did what he did with good intentions, unless he can also assert a defense that he did not do so "wilfully."


So, Karl Rove and others involved who may have shared classified information cannot assert a defense that they had "good intentions" since their activities were "willful" in that they intended to share the classified information (or even unclassified information relating to the national defense which "could" lead to the USA being injured).

The reasons Bush administration officials may have had for willfully sharing information about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA is totally irrelevant as is the distinction between offering her name to the press as oppopsed to simply confirming for a reporter that she worked at the CIA, regardless of whether her CIA status was covert.

I reiterate, if any Bush administration officials disclosed or confirmed any information relating to the national defense that could possibly injure the USA, such official is guilty of violating 18 USC 793. They are guilty whether they saw the classified State Department memo or not under the simple test of 18 USC 793 as set forth by the Court in Morison. Of course, if they did see the State Department memo classified as SECRET, the conviction is that much esier to prove and the penalty will probably be more severe.

Now we turn our attention to United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 556 (4th Cir. 2000) . http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/0resp...-0969.resp.html

In that case, the question presented to the court was, whether the district court improperly defined the terms "connected with the national defense" and "relating to the national defense" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 793 and 794.

The Court's decision in that case cuts right through the media talking point alleging that Valerie Plame's status was not covert. Indeed, the issue of public knowledge of the classified information is not relevant to the issue of whether the leaker broke the law. The Court stated:

"The term "national defense" is a broad term which refers to the United States military and naval establishments and to all related activities of national preparedness.

To prove that documents, writings, photographs or information relate to the national defense, there are two things that the Government must prove. First, it must prove that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States. And second, it must prove that the material is closely held by the United States government.

To prove that documents, writings, photographs or information relate to the national defense, there are two things that the Government must prove. First, it must prove that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States. And second, it must prove that the material is closely held by the United States government. "

This first test is met if the disclosure "might" be useful to an enemy of the USA. Valerie Plame was working on weapons of mass destruction issues at a time of war. The paragraph her name appears in on the State Department memo was officially classified as SECRET by the US Government. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, signed by President Bush defines SECRET:

"Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."

The information regarding Valerie Plame in the State Department memo is statutorily defined as information which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security of the USA. There is no argument available to the future defendants which can change that status.

For purposes of part two of the test announced by the Court in Squillacote, it is irrelevant whether Rove or others saw the memo including the paragraph with Valerie Plame's info marked as SECRET because the classification in the memo of that information as being SECRET proves that the material is closely held by the United States government.

Disclosure of that information was potentially damaging to the USA according to 18 USC 793(d) and Executive Order 13292.

The court further stated:

"This Court has never held that information in classified government documents ceases to "relat[e] to the national defense," within the meaning of the espionage statutes, whenever such information may be found somewhere in the public domain. Nor has any court of appeals made such a holding."

So, it will not do those involved in Treasongate any good to argue that some people in the public domain knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The court went on to address a very similar fact pattern:

"The Second Circuit did not hold, as petitioners suggest, that a closely held government document ceases to "relate to the national defense," for purposes of the espionage statutes, whenever the information in the document may be found in the public domain...

The court of appeals explained that "there is a special significance to our government's own official estimates of its strengths and weaknesses, or those of a potential enemy," because such estimates "carry with them the government's implicit stamp of correctness," which "in and of itself is a fact that would be highly valuable to other countries...

Finally, if the government had to bear the burden of proving that the information on which an espionage prosecution is based "was not lawfully available in the public domain" at the time of its dissemination, as petitioners urge (Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted)), the government's ability to bring such prosecutions would be severely impaired. The government would effectively be required "to prove, at least as to some piece of information contained in the document, that no person anywhere in the world had ever publicly speculated about that information"...

As the court of appeals recognized, "[r]equiring that kind of 'proof of a negative' would unduly hamper the government's ability to protect sensitive information and would render successful prosecutions in cases involving closely-held documents nearly impossible." Ibid. No court has suggested that the government must bear such a burden."

The law does not create an exception for releasing classified information that may already be in the public domain. It makes no difference if Valerie Plame was known to some people somewhere in the world as a CIA Agent.

The applicable statutes were violated regardless. In conclusion, I find it quite incredible that the main stream media, and for that matter the blogosphere as well, has failed to bring these very applicable statutes and court decisions to the immediate attention of the People of the USA.
PART TWO!!!!

Hi Sunofone,
Like I've said before, I used to believe you were a prophet of doom. But now I believe you are trying to help educate America to the gross injustice that is happening before our very eyes (and most of Americans have their eyes tightly shut, while sipping Starbucks coffee ). I have a few questions for you...

1. Who do you see as the front runners in the next election (selection) ?
2. Are you worried that your involvement in uncovering the truth may be detrimental to your freedom ? Are they watching you ?


I hope and pray to the power of LOVE that we can stop this...but it may be inevitable and part of the Universal Cosmic plan
Thank you Sunofone for your time and energy spent

I say the first thing we all need is to be informed. If we all have the facts then we can act together for a positive change. Corporations and powerful lobbies have too much sway over the Peoples interests. Wall St sets its own regulatory policies...I mean C'mon...are we all asleep at the wheel? More people need to wake up first I guess.

Thanks for the post Sunofone...just think, if Clinton had done this to a right-wing kook...exposed an agent...they probably would have wanted the death penalty....but since the right -wing ousted a "liberal" as they painted her to be...then somehow that is supposed to mitigate the crime? Sick. Never mind she did her job and told the truth as an American first.

thanks for the kind words MA --1-i hate to sound like a prophet of doom but im not so sure of another selection--however if the there is indeed a covert counter coup taking place and certain drills dont "go live" due to the successful removal of the war pigs--i could easily see hillary as a symbolic eve that could convince man to eat from the tree of knowledge and doom man to being expelled from edin once again--she would in essence be the first first lady--gore/hillary with gore being sacrificed and stabbed in the back--2-naaa on both- one thing we have without doubt is superior numbers- the greater the awakening becomes the harder it gets for them to pursue everyone-sure they are recording "everything" but sifting through it is another thing all together

these charges warrant life in prison!! how can the public allow the media to be so NEGLIGENT???!!
can any bush supporter defend these actions? THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN ISSUED
**********************************************************************
The Challenge of 18 USC 794...
CHALLENGE TO JOE WILSON:

“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

That was Joe Wilson speaking to David Corn in The Nation on July 16th.

Joe Wilson, if he does not want to remain looking like an obvious Bush facilitator of Treason, should demand the Bush administration be prosecuted under 18 USC 794 for Treason since that is the law which sent Aldrich Ames away to prison for life.

CHALLENGE TO DAVID CORN and "THE NATION":

"Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved."

(From Page 349 of Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth".)

David Corn, you are challenged to publish a genuine "detailed explopration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation", understand all of the legalities involved, particularly 18 USC 794 which you have ignored?

CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND.COM:

A thread at Democraticundergound.com was locked yesterday when the moderators challenged Citizen Spook to provide a "reliable source" for my reporting.

DU, I have given two reliable sources:

Source #1: Title 18 of our United States Code, 18 USC 794. See my analysis of it here

It's an impeccable source, but for some reason your site does not have any discussion or analysis on it. Why not?

Source #2: The United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Morison.

I suggest you read my sources carefully and then report back to your readership with your own analysis.

CHALLENGE TO NATIONAL REVIEW:

Clifford May did an excellent job of analyzing David Corn's outing of Plame's status, but May and the National Review have failed miserably to cover the applicable laws to the Treason before us, 18 USC 794. Why?

CHALLENGE TO AMERICA

Don't get distracted by the pundits America. The law is the only source you need. Anybody who truly wishes to see the Bush administration and its facilitators pay for their Treasons against this country should analyze 18 USC 794 carefully and then ask why none of the pundits from the Conservative media or the Liberal media have brought a detailed, impartial analysis of this law to your attention.

The USA is the victim of Treason here, not the Wilson's. We suffer for this destruction of national intelligence assets. Our security has been challenged.

This is a very simple issue. We have laws against Treason, why won't the the main stream media or the main stream blogosphere discuss the law our Government has enacted to punish Treason?

There are other scandals that deserve your attention; election fraud, The Downing Street memo and the continuing Iraq war, but demanding a national debate on the violations of 18 USC 794 in the Plame leak and the Khan leak outweigh those issues right now because convictions are easily attainable under 18 USC 794 based on just the facts we know.

Start there America, get the indictments sorted out through pressuring the media to cover the law, and the rats will roll over on each other faster than you can imagine.

The law is clear, concise and available to the Special Prosecutor and the sitting grand juries as well as future grand juries.

I also challenge all American citizens to learn about your Constitutional powers as the Fourth Branch of US Government.

Citizen Spook's identity is irrelevant, as is the merit of any "political" analysis of 18 USC 794...the law stands alone. Media traitors can be located, spotted and outed based upon their decision to cover or not cover 18 USC 794 and United States v, Morison.

America, demand a national debate concerning these laws. Since the media was so driven to analyze the IIPA, why is that same media involved in a total black out of 18 USC 794?

If Joe Wilson and David Corn are not in cahoots with the White House, they can discredit Citizen Spook's allegations by publishing exhaustive analysis of 18 USC 794, discussing previous convictions under that law and and analyzing the line of cases that have used the law.link

Sunofone,
You have provided a lot of information What do we have to do ? write to congressmen ? please provide a little more info on the steps to take to exploit these wrongdoings, since the main media isn't doing it I have signed numerous petitions regarding various issues, it seems a bit disappointing because I'm not that aware, as to what becomes of the petitions Thanks for your hard work and love of freedom...TRUE FREEDOM
P.S. I think I have a crush on you now
P.P.S You wouldn't happen to have a commune, would you ? I'd gladly move there Maybe we could start one together

What rot. Valerie Plame openly commuted to work at Langley. Anyone who cared could have found out that she worked openly for the CIA, and certainly every foreign agent in the US did know . . . they keep tabs on that sort of thing. Her neighbors, when interviewed said that they knew she worked there, because she told them so. Rove said only that Joe Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, had something to do with Joe Wilson's "mission" (which Wilson himself said wasn't covert in any way). No where did Rove say anything about any covert activity Plame might have ever been involved in.

Now, Plame herself should have a bit to answer to regarding national security. She made a political contribution (in an illegal amount, $2,000) to Gore's presidential campaign, and filled in on the form as an employer the CIA bogus firm used as cover for a good many really covert agents, after she had "come in from the cold" and was openly working at Langley. That disclosure did cause a CIA operation to blow up in their faces, and covert agents were exposed. It was a terrible intelligence gaff on her part, and a half-wit should have known that it is exactly that sort of thing that foreign agents keep their eyes peeled for.

exacly and by doing this he officially acknowledged in a public forum who her employer is regaurdless of whether or not the connection was classified or not--this is the instigation that anyone would need to investigate her,everyone associated with her and their operations up to that point--here is an excerpt from the link above marked part two-
*****************************************************************
INTELLIGENCE SPECULATION

Before I get to the cold hard facts of the law, I want to engage in some speculation about the Bush administration's motivations for breaking the law.

It's important to note that it wasn't just Valerie Plame who was outed by Novak. Plame's entire network was also outed when Novak named Brewster Jennings & Associates, a CIA front company, as the place she worked. The focus of Plame's CIA work was weapons of mass destruction. Her network was responsible for gathering information to help defend our nation against annihilation by such weapons.

WMD is the reason Bush took us to war with Iraq, the backbone of his foreign policy, the mantra more than 1800 of the USA's finest soldiers have met their death for. It is that term, "weapons of mass destruction" that might actually be the calling card of the grim reaper, should he come via court order for the men and women of the Bush crime family.

Don't buy into the mantra that Plame was outed only as a retaliation upon her husband, Joe Wilson. The Bush crime family wouldn't put their necks on the chopping block for Treason just to smear Wilson, especially in light of the fact that they knew Wilson's Niger report was accurate. The risk reward pay off is ridiculously insufficient.

The Bush cabal are not a stupid bunch. You can ridicule Bush, Cheney and the gang all you like, but they're running our country, making billions through Haliburton and the Carlisle group, getting away with torture in open view, and rewriting the Constitution while flipping the middle finger to the main stream media who take that finger, lick it and deposit it in their anatomy on a daily basis...with a smile on their faces.

The only logical reason the intelligent Bush administration would expose themselves to prosecution under the controlling laws of the United States Code by outing Valerie Plame, Brewster Jennings and the CIA, is that they probably had no other choice. It was either expose a major CIA operation to the public at large through co-conspirator, Robert Novak, or allow Plame's CIA division to complete their WMD investigations.

The Bush syndicate must have come to the conclusion that they had a better chance of spinning the outing of Plame to petty retaliation for Wilson's debunking of the Niger document fraud, than they had of surviving an investigation by the CIA of their crimes against the USA and humanity at large, for the fixing of intelligence to support a preemptive war and possibly the facilitation of future black op patsies.

Until recently, the Bush spin machine has flawlessly controlled public attention by concentrating it, as to the law, on the insignificant Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and, as to their motivations, on the Wilson smear campaign. This has been easy spin as their gambit was centered in confidence that the media would play along.

What they could not spin, if the CIA was on to them, was mountains of evidence Plame and her network might have uncovered, evidence which may have been implicating the Bush syndicate in Treason.

Certainly, the State Department and the White House staff must have considered that outing a CIA agent of any level or status, covert or non covert, who was working on weapons of mass destruction, "in a time of war", might lead to that work being compromised and that such actions on their part might expose them to the provisions of 18 USC 793 and 794, among other laws.

And that is exactly what happened.

So their motivations must have been more than simple, petty b**** slapping for Wilson debunking their Niger fraud documents. Keep the word "motivation" in your mind from now on. It's the key to the whole scenario.

Were Plame's team of CIA agents getting close to some of the things Sibel Edmonds was translating at the FBI, things which might implicate the Bush syndicate in 911 as well as the facilitation of terrorist cells getting their hands on components necessary to develop Nuclear weapons to be used against the USA so that the Bush administration could retaliate by going into Iraq, Iran, then North Korea and wherever else their imperialist buts saw fit?

Recall the words used by Wolfowitz just after 911 when he declared that the USA foreign policy would "end terrorist states", a prophetic statement at a time when nobody was suggesting, let alone had any intelligence to implicate any of those countries in 911.

Consider this speculation in light of the "eight redacted pages" of evidence presented by Fitzgerald to support his request that Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller be put in jail for contempt. The issue was throughly discussed by Lawrence O'Donnell in his July 7th Huffington Post article, wherein he reported:

"Tatel actually found that reason and experience 'support recognition of a privilege for reporters' confidential sources'. But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to 'the gravity of the suspected crime'. "

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to [h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings...

Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he 'might have' let Cooper and Miller off the hook '[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.'

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said 'Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.'

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment."

So, with that background:

ANALYSIS OF 18 USC 794(a)

Bush administration officials are very familiar with this law. Each and every one of them signed a non disclosure agreement which says, in part:

" In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(, Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."

There it is, in big bad English, "794".

We will examine three different sections of 794, (a), ( and ©, each of which contains unique criteria for conviction.

18 USC 794(a)

§ 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

"(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy."

Wow, there's a lot going on there so let's break it down.

The first requirement for conviction under 794(a) is that the perp must have "intent or reason to believe" that "information" (or any of the other things listed) "is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation". The key word within this section equals, "is". Any 794(a) perpetrators must have the requisite intent. "Is to be used" is much different than "might be used".

Did Karl Rove and others, intend or have reason to believe that the information communicated to Novak, outing Valerie Plame and her network, would be used to injure the USA or to the advantage of any foreign nation? Even if they thought it "might" be used as such, the standard is not met.

The law is clear. Unless the Prosecutor could present sufficient evidence that the perp in question knew, or had reason to believe, the information transmitted was going to be used to injure the USA, the prosecution would fail under 794(a).

Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald has such information, but I can't answer that. All I can tell you is that the law sets a high hurdle.

One could argue that the information, once made available, would be used to the "advantage of a foreign nation", and that is not as a high a hurdle. I agree, but the prosecutor still must prove that the perps intended or had reason to believe that the information would be used for that purpose. Once again, "is to be used" is a higher standard than "might be used."
And with such a specific legal requirement, the prosecutor would have to bring evidence relating to which "foreign nation" the information would confer an advatage upon.

It won't be sufficient to name "Al Qaeda" or " the terrorists" because 794(a) does not recognize them as "a foreign nation" under the statute. The statute does recognize terrorists as a "foreign power", but that is different than a "foreign nation."

If Fitzgerald gets by these hurdles, it will be assumend that the information was "indirectly" transmitted to every foreign nation on Earth through Novak, the reporter who published the information to the world. In Part 1 of this report we analyzed the Morison decision, which stated:

"[C]ertainly injury to the United States could be inferred from conduct of the sort charged," whether that conduct involves photographing documents by one foreign agent or release of national defense information to the press and public, where many foreign agents and governments can have access to the information."

For the death penalty to apply regarding 794(a), the prosecution would also have to prove that the information transmitted by the perpetraitor led to the death of a United States agent.

While everything involved with Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury is generally to be kept secret, it's interesting to note that Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, section (3), provides exceptions that empower Fitzgerald to confer with others:

"(3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand jury matter--other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote--may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel--including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government'--that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law...

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. sec. 401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties..."

ANALYSIS OF 18 USC 794(

So, we've established that 18 USC 794(a) sets a difficult test for the prosecution, but 794( 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":

"( 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( 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( is death or life in prison.

The Bush Administration most fears 794(. 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( 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(, 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:

from what ive heard dmg plame seems to be a double agent and just as guilty--here is an update on the issue and i must at this point commend CITIZENSPOOK for his relentless education of the laymen on the subtle points of the law--i could not describe him as eloquently as he describes himself on his blog so here is his own description--

it seems the precendent set has allowed for the DEATH PENALTY in the violation of the very acts that rove,corn and plame herself have violated at the very least life in prison is warranted--heres the update
*********************************************************************
Prior High Profile Convictions Under 18 USC 794


1. The Rosenbergs were convicted, sentenced, and put to death under 18 USC 794(B.

Please review the United States Court of Appeals' Second Circuit decision in the Rosenberg prosecution (which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court) on the issue of 18 USC 794

"Since two of the defendants must be put to death if the judgments stand, it goes without saying that we have scrutinized the record with extraordinary care to see whether it contains any of the errors asserted on this appeal...

The Supreme Court has held that the Espionage Act of 1917 makes criminal, and subject to the prescribed penalties, the communication of the prohibited information to the advantage of 'any foreign nation,' even if such communication does not injure this country. See Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 29-30, 61 S.Ct. 429, 435, 85 L.Ed. 488, where the Court said: 'Nor do we think it necessary to prove that the information obtained was to be used to the injury of the United States. The statute is explicit in phrasing the crime of espionage as an act of obtaining information relating to the national defense 'to be used * * * to the advantage of any foreign nation.' No distinction is made between friend or enemy. Unhappily the status of a foreign government may change. The evil which the statute punishes is the obtaining or furnishing of this guarded information, either to our hurt or another's gain.' 2 Accordingly, the trial judge, in the case at bar, properly instructed the jury as follows: 'I charge you that whether the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was an ally or friendly nation during the period of the alleged conspiracy is immaterial..." (emphasis added)

2. Jonathan Pollard was convicted and sentenced to life in prison under 18 USC 794©.

It's interesting to note that Mr. Pollard's appeals have been denied by none other than Thomas Hogan, Chief Justice of the US District Court for the Disctrict of Columbia. This is the same Justice Hogan who denied Judith Miller's ridiculous arguments.

Mark Kleiman, one of the few bloggers who has covered the applicability of the the Espionage Act (18 USC 793 and 794) to the facts of the Plame outing, covered Hogan's comments:

"[Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F.] Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she 'alleges she is protecting' had already waived her promise of confidentiality...

' This is not a case of a "whistle-blower" revealing secret information to Miller... It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime... This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct.' "



It's also interesting to note that Ted Olson was one of the lawyers who represented Pollard in his appeal.

3.Aldrich Ames was convicted, and sentenced to life in prison under 18 USC 794.

Joe Wilson said, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

Didn't he also say that he wanted to see Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House? There's a law that could see that happen, Joe. Why don't you invoke it?

A
Government report, titled, "Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy"

, had this to say about Ames' conviction and 18 USC 794 (page a-84):

"According to data gathered by the Department of Justice, there were 67 indictments under the espionage laws between 1975 and August 1996. Figures compiled by the Department of Defense Security Institute show 86 new espionage cases reported between 1975 and 1995. (Both sets of materials are on file at the Commission offices.) Aldrich Ames was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 794© of the Espionage Act for a conspiracy “to directly or indirectly communicate, deliver or transmit . . . documents and information related to the national defense . . . to a foreign government or a representative or officer thereof . . . with the intent or reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign government.” His wife, Rosario, was also indicted for conspiracy under a separate provision of the Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(g), for “a willful combination or agreement” with her husband “to communicate, deliver or transmit . . . documents relating to the national defense . . . to persons not authorized to receive them.” Both also were indicted on tax fraud charges. Both subsequently pled guilty, with Aldrich Ames sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and Rosario Ames to a five-year term."

4.Robert Hansen was convicted and sentenced to life in prison under 18 USC 794.
Examine the Government's indictments of Hansen.



THE LAW DOES NOT CARE ABOUT POLITICS OR MOTIVE

As the cases above illustrate, the motive the informant may have for breaking the Espionage law, 18 USC 794, is totally irrelevant. The Rosenbergs and Pollard have both argued that their intention was to help an ally, not harm the United States. The courts' held that the law doesn't care what their motives were.

Walter Pincus and The Washington Post reported on Ocotber 4th, 2003:

"The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday...

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front...

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

'That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name,' the former diplomat said."

Just do the math. Valerie Plame was a CIA operative working on WMD proliferation issues. Her identity and the front company she worked for were outed by Novak. Her "undercover" status was outed by Corn, and she outed her own likeness (which shocked CIA officials) by posing for a photograph which was published in Vanity Fair.

Why should the leakers in Treasongate be treated any differently than those convicted under 18 USC 794 in the past? The statute provides no defense based upon motive. But seriously, does anybody still believe the Bush administration violated the Espionage Act and exposed themeselves to death or life in prison just to "smear" Joe Wilson? Motive doesn't matter to the law, other than its usefulness as an evidentiary device.


According to the only judges who have seen the most secret evidence that Special Counsel Fitzgerald has uncovered, serious crimes have been committed.

Have a look at Lawrence O'Donnel's report in the Huffington Post of July 7, 2005, a report Citizen Spook regards as one of the most important media revelations in US history, which states:

"In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges 'in the light of reason and experience.' Tatel actually found that reason and experience 'support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.' But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to 'the gravity of the suspected crime.'

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to '[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case 'which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.' Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he 'might have' let Cooper and Miller off the hook '[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.' (emphasis added by CS)

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said 'Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.' "

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment."

TONY BLAKELY ACCUSES THE NEW YORKER OF ESPIONAGE UNDER 18 USC 794.

KUDOS to Tony Blakely who wrote a very interesting article suggesting that Seymour Hersh was guilty of violating the Espionage Act when he revealed details regarding US intelligence pertaining to Iraq. This column is from January 2005:

"Title 18 United States Code section 794, subsection (B prohibits anyone "in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy [from publishing] any information with respect to the movement, numbers, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces ... of the United States ... or supposed plans or conduct of any ... military operations ... or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy ... [this crime is punishable] by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."


Subsection (a) of that statute prohibits anyone "with ... reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates ... to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

I am not an expert on these federal code sections, but a common sense reading of their language would suggest, at the least, that federal prosecutors should review the information disclosed by Mr. Hersh to determine whether or not his conduct falls within the proscribed conduct of the statute.

In the fairly recent past, at least one journalist writing for Jane's Publications has been successfully prosecuted under the statute, freedom of speech and the press not being a defense to espionage. Remember, in the famous Pentagon Papers case, the issue was prior restraint. Could the government stop a newspaper from publishing government secrets relating not to current operations but to prior planning? The answer then was no. But in the current matter of Seymour Hersh and the New Yorker, they have been free to publish the article. The question is whether or not any legal consequences attach to that decision.

I was shocked when I read Mr. Hersh's article. Note the tenses he uses to describe American military action: "The American commando task force ... is now working," "has been conducting secret reconnaissance." In other words, Mr. Hersh is revealing to all the world, including the Iranian government, that our commandos are currently behind enemy lines in Iran on a dangerous and vital military assignment. "

Full article here.

Wow. What the hell? How did this go unpunished? Aren't we at war? Are we really so docile, America? Are we really going to allow them to do this to us?

When is the main stream media going to pay attention to the "eight redacted pages", the Judges' comments about the damage to national security, and the actual laws that have been broken, especially 18 USC 794?

If you just look at the facts that are not even in dispute, they prove that Plame and Brewster Jennings were outed, you have prima facie convictions just sitting their staring America in the face.

Condi Rice has admitted that Khan's cooperation was leaked by the Government. She's admitted the Government violated 18 USC 794(B. It's out in the open. When will our nation take a closer look at the Khan leak and this trend of outing intelligence assets?

The bogus Bush mantra for the Iraq war was WMD.

But when our intelligence assets get close to real WMD threats and genuine issues of WMD proliferation, people like Sibel Edmonds, John O'Neil, Able Danger, Brewster Jennings, and the intelligence divisions involved with "turning" Khan are actually found to be doing their job, the Bush administration has exhibited an MO for shutting them down at all costs.

What is going on America, and what are you going to do about it?
link