Anyone know the law on this?

[techs]

OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

My feeling is that if an Adminstration is using security rules to protect itself from exposure, and there is no recourse to expose the wrongdoing EXCEPT to leak so-called classified information, than that leak should be exempt from punishment.

Now ask yourself: We all now know that there is an NSA domestic warrantless surveilance program in place. Understand that domestic surveilance WITH A WARRANT, presumably performed by the NSA, already takes place under FISA. So the only "classified fact" here that has been leaked is that there is NSA surveilance being performed that is without a warrant. How does the knowledge that the surveilance is warrantless as opposed to warranted compromise national security?

The answer is, it doesn't. This is more BS from a BS President.

 

[glenn1]

Well, not knowing all the facts or context it would be hard to tell what might happen (I'm also not a lawyer or an expert on the laws involved). Bear in mind that we don't at this point know how widespread the surveillance was, who the targets were, what probable cause may have existed, or what intelligence was being sought. To me, it's one thing if you're listening to someone on the phone with Osama bin Laden planning the next 9/11, and another if you're scraping the phone records of everyone in the NYC phone book with an Arabic sounding surname. That doesn't mean I give Bush the benefit of the doubt (because I don't, indeed I'm inclined to think it's worse than we know), but I do realize I don't have the full information to make an informed judgement at this point.

To answer your question though, my first inclination is that presuming someone leaked the mere fact of the surveillance taking place and they had knowledge of it being illegal (or believed in good faith that it was), they'd probably be protected under whistleblower laws. Now if that leak involved intelligence methods, targets, or the findings of the surveillance, then it's probably something which can be prosecuted.

 

[dullard]

I don't know the exact answer to your question. But, generally two wrongs don't make the second wrong legal. If leaking information is illegal, it probably doesn't matter what you leaked, the reasons behind/associated with the leak, nor does it matter if there was any attempt to cover up the leak.

There are proper legal routes to expose something illegal. Whistleblower laws, look them up. Use that channel to expose the illegal government activities. There is no reason to leak to the world (it'll get out eventually and legally). There is no reason to risk going to jail about this.

Ok, there is one reason to leak to the world. When you want to be jailed, when you want to have press about you, when you want to sign movie/book deals.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: dullard
I don't know the exact answer to your question. But, generally two wrongs don't make the second wrong legal. If leaking information is illegal, it probably doesn't matter what you leaked, the reasons behind/associated with the leak, nor does it matter if there was any attempt to cover up the leak.

There are proper legal routes to expose something illegal. Whistleblower laws, look them up. Use that channel to expose the illegal government activities. There is no reason to leak to the world (it'll get out eventually and legally). There is no reason to risk going to jail about this.

Ok, there is one reason to leak to the world. When you want to be jailed, when you want to have press about you, when you want to sign movie/book deals.

The bolded sentence is exactly the point. The Adminstration, including the Justice Department, were parties to the illegality. So what "channel" was available to the leaker? Anyone provided with this "classified" information was sworn not to reveal it to anyone. In other words, this was a "closed system." Notifying ANYONE not already privy to the information was a "violation."

To see confirmation of this, I invite you to reference the letter revealed by Senator John D. Rockefeller yesterday. It said in part,

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

If a Senator could not contact anyone outside of the closed circle who implemented the program (note the use of the phrase "independent . . . expertise"), that ought to tell you something about what recourse was available to whoever leaked this information.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

My feeling is that if an Adminstration is using security rules to protect itself from exposure, and there is no recourse to expose the wrongdoing EXCEPT to leak so-called classified information, than that leak should be exempt from punishment.

Now ask yourself: We all now know that there is an NSA domestic warrantless surveilance program in place. Understand that domestic surveilance WITH A WARRANT, presumably performed by the NSA, already takes place under FISA. So the only "classified fact" here that has been leaked is that there is NSA surveilance being performed that is without a warrant. How does the knowledge that the surveilance is warrantless as opposed to warranted compromise national security?

The answer is, it doesn't. This is more BS from a BS President.

Wow,
that's a really good argument - definitely something that would hold up in the court.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: shira
The bolded sentence is exactly the point. The Adminstration, including the Justice Department, were parties to the illegality. So what "channel" was available to the leaker? Anyone provided with this "classified" information was sworn not to reveal it to anyone. In other words, this was a "closed system." Notifying ANYONE not already privy to the information was a "violation."

You always have the court system. You don't have to reveal anything confidential to tell the courts that laws are being broken. You can get the ball rolling without revealing the information. When the time comes, the court will order you to tell the confidential information within a closed court system. You are thereby protected from the courts prosecuting you.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: shira
The bolded sentence is exactly the point. The Adminstration, including the Justice Department, were parties to the illegality. So what "channel" was available to the leaker? Anyone provided with this "classified" information was sworn not to reveal it to anyone. In other words, this was a "closed system." Notifying ANYONE not already privy to the information was a "violation."

You always have the court system. You don't have to reveal anything confidential to tell the courts that laws are being broken. You can get the ball rolling without revealing the information. When the time comes, the court will order you to tell the confidential information within a closed court system. You are thereby protected from the courts prosecuting you.

How does the court system come into play? Think of the order of events:

1. I'm sworn to secrecy as a pre-condition for receiving information.

2. I'm given a briefing containing classified information.

3. In thinking about what I've been told, I suspect - but am not sure - that there may be violations of the law.

4. I go to court and . . . ? I'm not a lawyer, so I cannot determine whether anything illegal has taken place. I can't contact outside experts, as that would violate my oath of secrecy. I'm not a prosecutor, and therefore cannot charge anyone with a crime, even if I'm pretty sure one has occurred. I cannot speak with any outside prosecutor, as that would be revealing classified information.

So what am supposed to do at this "court system?" Do I say to a judge, "I think there may be some illegality going on, but I can't provide you with any details"? And do you think that any party to the potential illegaility is going to back me up on this? Do you think a judge, given ZERO specifics, can issue a court order binding on the Justice Department and/or Administration?

Please describe the "process" available to a person in this position.

The point is, there is none.

 

[TheSlamma]

I think it is illegal, but this administration is above the law.

Corruption eventually collapses though, it just takes awhile.

 

[piasabird]

Well if you have to have a security clearance to have access to information or to do your job like serving on a committee or working for Homeland Security, or the President's Cabinet or on his Staff, then you could be subject to vilation national security. People who reveal secrets in the FBI or CIA can definitely go to Jail. However, some people feel it is their Patriotic Duty to reveal that something is going on in the government that they consider wrong and they will leak the information. So there is a fine line about their reasoning behind the leak. It could be for the purpose of political manipulation, it could be because of their perception that something is wrong, and it could be because they identify with terrorists and want to subvert the government and commit an act of Treason or some lesser crime. A lot depends how the government or congress wants to handle this. If the president tries to go after a person and prosecute to the letter of the law maybe someone could be in jail for treason or espionage and that person would have almost no recourse under the constitution and very few rights, But it would have to be a pretty iron-clad case. Without clear and undeniable proof the president could be looking at the misuse of power, or the perception of the misuse of power. We are at a point in time where the republicans are not backing up the president and they are not willing to take a chance at going down with a sinking ship, because they know the media has a liberal slant and will hang them out to dry.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The media knows that finding any truth in this Administration has become a game, and that the public is finally enjoying watching the game. "Truth about the Government" is the hot, new reality show.

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Your premise cannot be accepted because it is from the position that the President did something illegal.

Its not illegal if judicial precedence has been set on the same issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

 

[conjur]

Anyone else find it ironic the Propagandist is so worried about prosecuting this leak because it makes him look bad (national security risk? My aunt fanny) yet he sits on the sidelines while more than 2 years go by and we still don't know who in the White House leaked classified info on a CIA agent?

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone else find it ironic the Propagandist is so worried about prosecuting this leak because it makes him look bad (national security risk? My aunt fanny) yet he sits on the sidelines while more than 2 years go by and we still don't know who in the White House leaked classified info on a CIA agent?

Hmmmm...or maybe its because the first is more of a national security risk and the second is more of a trumped up pipe dream. I betcha thats how History will view it once the "Plamegate" dream fades from the MSM radar and the truth comes out.

Just my opinion

 

[irwincur]

I'm wondering what the big deal is. Past presidents (including such favorites as FDR and JFK) clearly used these same tactics. At least Bush is doing it in defense of the nation and not for personal means.

What it comes down to is the fact that if there was another attack and this stopped it we would never know. However, if there is another attack and it is not stopped, the president should have done more. The classic 'damned if you do damned if you don't' scenerio. So, is it bad that we are being a bit more cautious. At least it makes us slightly safer than in the pre-Bush world of carefree terrorist relations and avoidance of the real issue.

Furthermore, I cannot seem to find where in the Constitution this is illegal... Could you please help me with this...

 

[conjur]

Just how exactly is exposing an unconstitutional and illegal exercise a "national security risk"?

There's more to the leaking of Plame's identity than just her. It exposed Brewster Jennings (the CIA front company). I recommend you do some research into what was involved with that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I'm wondering what the big deal is. Past presidents (including such favorites as FDR and JFK) clearly used these same tactics. At least Bush is doing it in defense of the nation and not for personal means.

What it comes down to is the fact that if there was another attack and this stopped it we would never know. However, if there is another attack and it is not stopped, the president should have done more. The classic 'damned if you do damned if you don't' scenerio. So, is it bad that we are being a bit more cautious. At least it makes us slightly safer than in the pre-Bush world of carefree terrorist relations and avoidance of the real issue.

Furthermore, I cannot seem to find where in the Constitution this is illegal... Could you please help me with this...

Fourth Amendment. Not real hard to find.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Your premise cannot be accepted because it is from the position that the President did something illegal.

Its not illegal if judicial precedence has been set on the same issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

Doesn't matter.

Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order.

Those can all be nulled if brought into a court of law in front of a jury. The jury can rule the law null and void regardless of direction from the judge or the executive and it cannot be overturned by anyone.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: irwincur


Furthermore, I cannot seem to find where in the Constitution this is illegal... Could you please help me with this...

I got a better one for you. Show me where in Article 2 of the Constitution does it give the president the power to spy on American citizens?

 

[shira]

For righties who can't seem to make the obvious distinction:

The Valerie Plame episode was a leak whose only purpose was to discredit Joseph Wilson and thereby (it was hoped) further the anti-Iraq rhetoric of the Administration. Wilson had broken no laws, and the leak had purely political motives.

In contrast, the NSA wire-gate leak has exposed potential gross misconduct on the part of the Executive branch. Since anyone who follows the news already knew that FISA has provisions for domestic surveilance, the only NEW information exposed by the leak was that for the past four years, WARRANTLESS domestic surveilance has been taking place.

Now, if anyone can explain to me how the knowledge by potential terrorists of the existence of warrantless domestic surveilance hurts national security, I'd like to hear the argument. I am VERY skeptical.

So what we have is a leak with motives that are apparently golden: the exposure of gross misconduct by Bush and his cronies. And there is no downside. If the leaker is wrong - if Bush et al are vindicated and there IS damage to our national security - then the leaker should face prosecution.

But I think what will in fact happen is that we will find that there was no way for the leaker to challenge this illegality through any normal channel, leaving him or her with the leak strategy as the only viable way to combat Bush's abuse of power.

 

[Future Shock]

To add to Shira's point above - the court that reviewed wiretap requests almost NEVER turns them down, and the courts records are secret. I think it was posted that they had turned down approximately 4 out of a 1000 requests.

So, if it is JUST terrorism that you are worried about - do you think the terrorists act any differently knowing that an additional .04% of wiretaps will now be approved? Do ya think that little tidbit is going to make them suddenly take better security precautions? Invent new codewords and cryptography?

Unbelieveable that people can swollow the administration line so hook, line and sinker...

Future Shock

NB - now if you want to discuss monitoring domestic anti-admin groups, and political adversaries...well then, I think they would have more to worry about warrantless wiretaps...and they do.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?"

Sure they can be prosecuted- the govt will just play hell finding a jury who will convict them, rendering such prosection merely punitive...

The pricetag for a high profile criminal defense runs into millions of dollars...

 

Sounds like your boss firing himself...

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: conjur
Just how exactly is exposing an unconstitutional and illegal exercise a "national security risk"?

There's more to the leaking of Plame's identity than just her. It exposed Brewster Jennings (the CIA front company). I recommend you do some research into what was involved with that.

Do you have a problem with the basic idea of listening in on a phone call that originated outside the US to someone inside the US or just the fact that its Bush doing it? The reason I ask is this has been going on for quite some years prior to this administration. I'm just trying to figure out if its the policy or Bush that your against. And to answer your question; its not illegal as judicial precedence has been set by FISA appeals judges for this very thing...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

... and by the Times leaking our defenses, no matter how insignificant you may believe they are, was a national security threat.


Please provide your proof that Plame's indentity was leaked, first. Then once you provide that then your second statement will be relevant. From everything that I have read, including the indictment of Mr Libby, there was no "leaking" of anything. So if that is true, that nothing was "leaked", then how can "it" be responsible for "exposing" the front company that she made her political contributions through? "It" doen't exist. Unless you provide something I haven't read yet. Which is entirely possible as your reputation preceeds you as being quite a provider of backup.

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: techs
OK, so Bush has pretty much said the Attorney General will be conducting an investigation into who leaked the info about the Bush surveillance.
Now I am wondering if someone leaks info about something the government is doing that is illegal can that someone be prosecuted? In other words can the Government legally declare an illegal act a secret? So if someone was indicted for revealing the info can they claim they had a right to reveal it since it was an illegal government act?

Your premise cannot be accepted because it is from the position that the President did something illegal.

Its not illegal if judicial precedence has been set on the same issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

Doesn't matter.

Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order.

Those can all be nulled if brought into a court of law in front of a jury. The jury can rule the law null and void regardless of direction from the judge or the executive and it cannot be overturned by anyone.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams

Doesn't matter?

"Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Judicial precedents are what the legal world uses as a reference to previous rulings and are considered the final result unless overturned. As far as I know a jury has not ruled on this issue so you must look to the precedent for direction.

I think I will choose to believe some FISA Judges on this issue as opposed to your opinion that a jury would find that the President broke the law.