lese majeste, I believe.
Sorry, Spav, but if I don’t joke, I choke. I would like to stay sane and sober, but if I have to choose, I will…
Good soldier my ass, more like lying scumsucking lap dog toady. If he starts talking I expect it will be along the lines of his U.N. speech. See there are these trucks, see? They are factories for chemical weapons, see? Saddam has WMD, see? Trust me, I am dignified. I won’t come in your mouth.
From http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2003/10/100303.html
But does the 1917 Espionage Act “forbid the unauthorized release of classified information”? Not exactly.
What it does do is prohibit disclosure of several narrowly defined categories of information – having to do with codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. It does not mention intelligence identities or many other diverse forms of classified information. See 18 USC 798 on “Disclosure of classified information” here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/798.html
The Espionage Act also prohibits under certain conditions the unauthorized disclosure of “defense information,” which includes much, but far from all classified information. The one and only conviction of a leaker [of classified information] to the media, Samuel L. Morison, resulted from the compromise of such “defense information.” See 18 USC 793 on “Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information” here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/793.html
As previously noted, Congress enacted a general provision to criminalize all leaks of any type of classified information in 2000, precisely because such a prohibition did not exist, notwithstanding the Morison precedent. But President Clinton vetoed it on November 4, 2000:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wh110400.html
Consequently, it seems clear, there is no universal statutory prohibition in the Espionage Act or any other statute that “forbids the unauthorized release of classified information.”
In other words, there’s “no controlling legal authority.”
It’s nice to see that IOKIARDI…
I’ve tried to be thorough in reading this thread, thank y’all, it’s helped me understand this travesty more than the news media. (Thanks to Bricker, too, who helps me understand the point-by-point of legal specifics. I may not agree with him, but he lets me see a different approach, and I appreciate that.)
So, this point may have been brought up, but, if so, it didn’t stick with me, so would bear repeating:
In outing Valerie Plame, wasn’t her employer, Brewster, Jennings and Associates, a CIA front company, also outted? This seems like a much more serious crime in terms of treason charges. My understanding is that Brewster, Jennings (no connection to the founder of Mobil Oil of the same name), is a CIA network tracking WMD’s. To expose that network would seem to really put this country at peril. Anyone know what’s going on from this angle?
I’ve wondered about this myself.
My first guess is that it’ll hard to get a list of B&J’s “employees.” So the effects may not become public for quite some time.
Somewhere, (Og help me b’cuz I don’t remember where, so no citation) I remember reading something or hearing something that gave me the impression that she worked academia in foreign countries. Worked them in the sense that she tried to find out about what kinds of research were going on.
Yes; a significant amount of CIA work was compromised, hence their irritation. My understanding (from one of the dozens of articles I’ve read about this) is that BJ&A was not an elaborately constructed front; it depended largely on the fact that no one was looking at it too closely. This is probably true of most intelligence operations–they’re just as elaborate as they need to be. Needless to say, it’s all over now.
I had hoped that we wouldn’t have any Dopers gullible enough to fall for the ridiculous GOP talking points on this, but Psycho Pirate shows us in this thread that there’s no Kool-Aid he won’t drink:
It is, indeed, taking longer than we thought.
Bingo! Now, let’s hear you pronounce it.
[sub]Note alternative spelling.[/sub]
Yep, and I bet if before the last election campaign I’d asked you if it was completely clear whether Bush or Kerry had the most valorous military record you’d have suggested it was Kerry, and that even Bush supporters could never be made to believe any different.
An assumption which, were you to make it, would make you look like a horse’s ass for a reason so obvious that I can’t be bothered typing it because if you had the brains to understand it, you’d not need to be told. And besides which you’ve been told already.
Ahem.
[sub]I just gotta keep my big mouth shut about politics and economics ‘cause I’m a moderator. Which I believe Tuba made me in order to keep me from bringing the Truth to th’ People.[/sub]
– Uke, Hobohemian
For the record, it was not I who compromised Ike’s covert status as a revolutionary cadre. So I don’t expect to be getting any shit from the Central Committee!
Eisenhower was a COMMIE???
::whispers:: I KNEW it!
Wow. I just Googled and read Eisenhower’s farewell speech so I could add a wisecrack, and now I don’t feel like smartassing. Here’s a bit:
Read the whole thing – it majorly revamped my view of Ike.
Yeah, I’m familiar with that. I’m afraid that Dick Chaney and Halliburton have proven him right.
The Birchers were decades ahead of the American right wing…in an era when most Republicans were like Ike, they wanted him impeached as a communist.
Not much coverage of the Rove thingy in the newspapers… it should be at least front page material IMO. They are about to cut Bush’s right arm ! (or his brain some say)
Somewhere around page 8 or 10 of The Denver Post this morning.
I can see this going off the front pages (or the radar altogether) until Fitzgerald surfaces, or some other big announcement is made.
Besides the Miller jailing, Cooper email, and the subsequent WH stonewalling there hasn’t been anything terribly newsworthy the past couple days. I mean “White House Stonewalls for Third Straight Day” and “Republican Politicians lash out at Democratic Politicians for Being Politicians” isn’t exactly front page stuff.
I do welcome surprises, however. Something may come out of Cooper’s testimony.