Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
From http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005343:- What's more, the Post is correct about the law, and Marshall is either mistaken or disingenuous. As we explained in October:
In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that [Plame] was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures," which would put the leakers in the clear legally if not politically.
In addition, the Novak column did not describe Plame as covert, only as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
If indeed Plame was a covert agent, why wouldn't the CIA take "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity? The answer may turn on the legal definition of covert. As we also noted in October, an employee is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute if and only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."
Little has been revealed publicly about the details of Plame's CIA career. But we do know that she gave birth to twins in 1999 or 2000, and it's unlikely that the CIA would send a new or expectant mother overseas on a dangerous assignment. Thus one may surmise that if indeed Plame was legally a covert agent, it was because she worked overseas during the early part of the five-year period preceding July 2003, when Novak's column appeared--that is, between mid-1998 and mid-1999. If she had been at a desk job at Langley for four years by last July, then concealing her identity, even if it was still classified, might not have been such a high priority for the agency.
A special prosecutor is investigating the Plame leak, so if we're wrong, it'll become clear soon enough. But at this point we'd be surprised if anyone gets charged, or indeed if any crime turns out to have been committed. And since Wilson appears to have lied about his wife's role in getting him the Niger gig, why should we lend any credibility at all to his claims about the leakers' motives?
|
The article seems to be saying there was no crime because:
(1) The leakers didn't know Plame was covert, and/or
(2) She wasn't covert, and/or
(2) The leakers didn't know that the government was taking affirmative measures to conceal her relationship with the CIA.
On (1), the fact that Novak called Plame an "operative" is pretty clear evidence that he knew she was covert. Someone (Marshall?) did a Lexis search of the other times Novak has used the word, and it's hard to argue. I would not want to defend that one in front of a jury.
On (2), there's the business about whether she's gone outside the country in the last five years. I thought I'd read that she had, but I don't know. You would imagine that this would be easy to nail down.
On (3) here's the key provision, I think (as opposed to what your author linked to, which is the statutory definitions):
- (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [/b]
15 U.S.C. s 421
I would wager that the "affirmative measures" requirement is met by (e.g.) the stamp on a piece of paper that says that Plame is classified. Your author seems to have odd notions about what a prosecutor would have to show in that regard.
edited for clarification; also,
Saying that Marshall is either "mistaken or disingenuous" about the law is not only aggressive in tone, it's not backed up by anything that follows. Marshall is, in fact, correct that outing a covert operative is not permitted to challenge the bona fides of a political opponent. And I said to Slave, I don't recall that Wilson said anything about his wife -- the leakers brought her into this to punish him, not to inform public debate. Which is how everyone understood it at the time.
