Now that the Justice Department investigation into the leaking of the name of a covert American agent by “senior White House officials” is fighting its way out of the wet paper bag in which it has been stashed for nearly a year, it’s time to bat around an idea I’ve been pondering for a few months.
While it is illegal for government employees to reveal the name of one of our secret agents, that law doesn’t apply to the reporters, editors and publishers who spread such information far and wide.
So Robert Novak and the others are in the clear. Or are they? Assuming Novak is an American citizen, would it be possible to charge him under the treason statute?
It sure seems to me that any American knowingly publishing the name of a covert CIA agent is committing a treasonous act.
So, what say you? Bob Novak - patriot or traitor? Should we also go after his syndicate - the editors and publishers who ran his column? And what if Novak plea bargains by offering up the names of those “senior White House officials” (who are the real villians in this case)? Should we then cut him some slack, or just throw the book at him?
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Charging someone with treason is very difficult because according to the Constitution (Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1), you need two eyewitnesses to the crime. That’s why you rarely see anyone charged with it.
Really? Shoot the messenger? The names of CIA officers should never, ever be revealed and private citizens who do so should be prosecuted for treason? Nope, don’t think I like that proposition very much. Potential for a lack of restraint on official behavior there, methinks.
If the government, in all its elephantine majesty, wishes to prosecute whoever dropped this little nugget in Novak’s lap, and can make some charge or other stick, well, let 'em have at it. I also think Novak should search his conscience and determine whether he really did a right and valuable thing in this case. But last I checked, we don’t have an Official Secrets Act in this country, and prosecuting Novak for treason would be just about as valid as the Mugabe government’s arresting independent reporters in Zimbabwe because they supposedly disrespect the ruling party.
Sorry, not enough choices. How about Journalist? Opportunist? Partisan jagoff?
Yes, er, no, er, maybe. I can’t really answer unless someone shows me the page in the Big Book ‘o’ Citizen’s Obligations where it says that citizens can never publicly identify or discuss certain government functionaries whose actions may affect them.
Personally, I have no problem with a reporter reporting factual material. The government is free to prosecute its own representatives if they feel that the release of Ms. Plame’s job title to a member of the press was illegal, but I don’t see a case for prosecution of a private citizen for treason here.
Novak might feasibly be charged (conviction is another matter) for something like obstruction of justice if he refuses to reveal his source, but to me claiming ‘treason’ for his actions in the Plame case is wildly off the mark. If the OP feels that this case justifies imposition of something like the UK’s Official Secrets Act on the US press, I’ll entertain arguments, although it’s gonna take a lot of convincing before I’d consider such a step justified.
On the other hand, there have been reporters who have refrained from publishing sensitive information at the request of their government. Though I’ll readily concede the point that patriotism is a variable thing.
Gee, under that logic any action could be construed as aiding our enemies. Criticize George Bush? That aids our enemies. Argue for cuts in military spending? That aids our enemies. Publish Abu Graib photos? That aids our enemies. Call for the US to withdraw from Iraq? That aids our enemies. Reveal the location of a certain DNA stained blue dress? That aids our enemies. Fail to meet production quotas for wheat production? That aids our enemies. A government official gives a press conference and says derogatory things about Muslims? That aids our enemies.
It’s a bullshit argument. The constitution explicitly rejects the ancient practice of declaring anything that harms the state treason. Did Robert Novak adhere to our enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort? No he did not. Your argument is essentially totalitarian and un-American.
Let me ask you. What purpose would be served by punishing Robert Novak? What would we, as Americans, gain? Well, reporters would certainly be deterred from publishing classified information, if they knew they could face the death penalty for leaking secrets. Is that what you want? Robert Novak can certainly be subpoenaed and required to divulge his source under threat of contempt of court. Certainly journalists do not have blanket immunity from testifying in criminal trials, nor should they have. But it isn’t treason to publish so-called secret information, and I can’t believe anyone would make that argument in good faith.
Do you really think revealing the identity of an active CIA agent, with possibly fatal consequences to her and/or her contacts, not to mention whatever impact it will have on our intelligence gathering operations, is on a par with - say - calling Mr. Bush a weenie? To quote a former CIA director:
(In case you haven’t heard this before, it was said by George H.W. Bush.)
“The constitution explicitly rejects the ancient practice of declaring anything that harms the state treason.” Okay. Tell us, what sort of actions are treasonous?
Now certainly, publishing government secrets is not, in itself, treasonous. The leaking of the Pentagon Papers falls into that catagory, as they dealt with past government actions. Conversely, I think we all would agree that if Mr. Novak had printed details of Operation Overlord on June 2, 1944, he should have immediately been strung from the nearest tree. The present incident falls somewhere in between those two.
(Just out of curiosity: how would you feel if folks in the previous administration had pulled a stunt like this?)
Oh, wait, I think I know this one. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. How’s that?
BJMoose, you’re not looking at the bigger picture. Yes, in this case the Bush Administration did something wrong, namely leaking the identity of a CIA agent. That many people now defending this action would be screaming like little girls if the other ox was gored is irrelevant.
It is certainly true that the government official that leaked the name should be fired. But they are not guilty of treason. Why? See above. Maybe Robert Novak was a douche for printing the name. But he isn’t guilty of treason. Why? See above.
This case is more important than scoring gotcha points against the current administration. Printing classified information is not treason. Printing details of Operation Overlord on June 2, 1944 is not treason. Publishing anything, anywhere, for any reason is not treason. Why? Because treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
If the government is stupid enough to leak the identity of a covert agent to a journalist, the government deserves everything it gets. Doesn’t “classified” mean anything to the yahoos that leaked his identity?
Why would it not be treason to pass military information to an enemy? Whether you slip it to them in a rolled up newspaper, or publish it outright in that newspaper, as long as there were 2 witnesses, that sure would seem to be treason to me.
I’m not agreeing with the OP, just that I think you took your reasoning too far.
While it may not meet the definition of “treason” contained in the Constitution, the revealing of covert agents’ names is a violation of Federal law; specifically, Section 421a of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act.
The “source” (coughcarlrovecough) shopped this leak around to a number of reporters before he finally found someone to publish it. THAT’s the story here. THAT’s the misdeed.
Novak’s publication of the leak shed light on the FACT of the leak. He’s the classic messenger in the “don’t shoot the messenger” metaphor.
Oh, great. Your property can be confiscated and forfeited forever (i.e. it won’t get passed on to your heirs after you die) if you’re guilty of posessing marijuana – but it can’t be forfeited beyond the end of your lifetime if you’re guilty of treason?! :smack:
Not only did Novak print the story, but immediately after leaving the White House, he stopped someone he knew and told them the story. This person called Chris Matthews who alerted Pete Wilson to the leak.
How many other people did Novak tell without having any assurance that Wilson’s wife was on guard and protected?
No. It just means that if you commit treason your descendants can’t be convicted of treason just because you were. And your property can be confiscated, but the property of your descendents can’t be confiscated for your crimes.
All this does is rule out the standard “Kill him and his children” punishment for treason.