Novak did have access to classified information, whether he knew it or not.
The key point in the law is that you have to have known that the person was undercover. You basically have to have done it deliberately.
Novak said it was said to him in an offhanded manner. He (Novak) asked why they would appoint Wilson to study this Niger thing when he was a Clinton administration guy, and was also a Democrat. The answer he got was “he was recommended by the CIA, probably because his wife works there.” Novak said he thought she was just some backroom analyst type of hack. Later he contacted someone at the CIA (a “source” speaking off the record) who said that she had been undercover in the past but probably wouldn’t be in the future…and it would probably be best not to use her name. Something like that. Anyway he used it anyway.
Now someone with access to the knowledge of her status at one point must have let this info out. But unless you can find that person who KNEW she was undercover then you don’t have much of a case. Basically, you have to have deliberately blown a CIA agent’s cover, she has to have been undercover within the past 5 years and the government has to be taking steps to conceal their identity. Difficult to prove that it was done deliberately.
It’s also interesting that when this law came about it was because a former CIA agent was publishing the names of undercover CIA agents. I think he got some of them killed. Anyway, they wanted to pass a law against deliberately releasing names. Guess who was against just such a law? Democrats (Schumer for one). Kind of ironic.
“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
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Bob Novak does not have a security clearance. He had no authorized access to classified information. The law clearly applies only to the leaker, not the reporter.
I think they put that in because “attainder of blood” was part of the punishment for treason in Britain – i.e., a traitor’s children were considered legally “attainted” and barred from holding public office, and there may have been other disabilities.
Suppose the leaker to Novak didn’t have authorized access either? From what I’ve read it was an open secret. One of those rumors where no one is really sure where it started from, it was simply known that he was appointed b/c his wife worked for the CIA (in some position).
So from what you’re saying, even if someone in the Bush administration did knowingly leak it…they’re still in the clear as long as they weren’t the one with authorized access???
Since it’s classified information, someone who had authorized access ultimately had to have told someone who did not, and that’s where the crime occurred. It’s conceivable that someone from outside the administration told an administration official who was low down enough not to have such authorization, and that person told Novak, but that’s hard to believe.
I don’t know if it’s treason, per se, but I won’t be happy until the people responsible, and anyone who authorized this or knew about it and didn’t come forward to somebody, are marched out of the White House in leg irons.
Believe it or not, Lemur866, I’m not trying to play “gotcha” here, and I am not trying to be snarky; nor am I merely trying to dump on Bob Novak - he just happens to be the best-known “culprit” in this issue. It simply occurred to me a while back that the act of spreading the identity of an covert agent might be a treasonous act, and I want to see what others think. We’ll put you down in the “no” column.
If I may dare say, it looks like you may not looking at the big picture, with your “strict constructionist” interpretation of the treason statute (not that there’s anything wrong with that, necessarily). But as I pointed out before, the argument can be made that Novak’s action could have “given aid and comfort to the enemy” (consider:if you were the head of, say, North Korean intelligence, wouldn’t you be tickled pink to learn the name of one of your enemy’s spies?)
Let’s keep politics out of this and consider the act itself.
I don’t suppose anyone out there is familiar with the case law regarding treason?
Right, but the person with the classified into may not be in the White House. They may be in the CIA. And that person who leaked it to the Novak would be in the clear, as he wasn’t the one with the access. The person who leaked it may say that he was talking to other people who he ASSUMED also had classified authorization. Since he didn’t do it knowingly, I’m not sure you could even get him.