FBI looking to bust a senator

[jjones]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I hope you aren't saying that leaking classified information isn't a felony.

It is illegal to release that information regardless of anyone's opinion about whether it is embarressing or sensitive. The simple matter of it is that it is classified information and a criminal act to release it to reporters.

For a member of Congress or a Senator, no, it's not. Congress specifically excluded its members from prosecution under The National Security Act of 1947 and the National Security Agency Act of 1959. Furthermore, the primary mechanism "codifying" the offense of disclosure of classified information by those who have access to it, and the penalties for doing so, is Executive Order 12356. AFAIK, the Seperation of Powers clause prohibits an Executive Order from being binding on a member of the legislature.

I am not a lawyer, however, and if my understanding of the laws is incorrect, i will gladly defer to somone with greater expertise in the matter.

I'm a little lost here. The National Security Act of 1947 establishes the Central Intelligence Agency the Department of Defense. The National Security Agency Act of 1959 establishes the National Security Agency. Where in the documentation of these acts does Congress exclude themselves from prosecution? I've perused them briefly but it mostly looks like a laundry list of to-do items outlining how these agencies will operate.

 

[Tiger]

Originally posted by: jjones
I think the probe is pretty straightforward. From the article:

The NSA, based at Fort Meade, is one of the government?s most secretive intelligence agencies. Much of its information carries a higher classification than other sorts of intelligence. It is illegal to release classified information.
For that reason alone, other legal experts knowledgeable about executive-legislative branch relations said that, in a case like this, ?criminal matters trump everything else.?

It is illegal to release that information regardless of anyone's opinion about whether it is embarressing or sensitive. The simple matter of it is that it is classified information and a criminal act to release it to reporters.

Finally, some apolitical common sense from someone who read the article rather than some coward political hack.
Isn't posting from two accounts illegal on this board?

 

[glenn1]

I'm a little lost here. The National Security Act of 1947 establishes the Central Intelligence Agency the Department of Defense. The National Security Agency Act of 1959 establishes the National Security Agency.

Because of the circular logic they employ. Those acts empower the President to determine what information is to be deemed classified, and empowers the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) to investigate its release to unauthorized parties. The President can't write laws, therefore he exercises this power by Executive Order. Executive Orders don't apply to members of Congress because of the seperations of powers principle.

Chapter 15, Sec. 413, Para D of the Nat'l Sec Act of 1947 pretty much lays it out. It pretty much says that if a member of Congress releases classified information, all that happens is that Congress needs to be informed and Congress itself will decide how to handle the leak.

In 2001, a House Resolution was brought to the floor making unauthorized disclosure of classified material a felony, but again members of Congress would have still been exempted.

As for Dave Sohmer's question about what sort of non-disclosure agreement members of Congress are held to, here's the jist of it.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I'm a little lost here. The National Security Act of 1947 establishes the Central Intelligence Agency the Department of Defense. The National Security Agency Act of 1959 establishes the National Security Agency.

Because of the circular logic they employ. Those acts empower the President to determine what information is to be deemed classified, and empowers the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) to investigate its release to unauthorized parties. The President can't write laws, therefore he exercises this power by Executive Order. Executive Orders don't apply to members of Congress because of the seperations of powers principle.

Chapter 15, Sec. 413, Para D of the Nat'l Sec Act of 1947 pretty much lays it out. It pretty much says that if a member of Congress releases classified information, all that happens is that Congress needs to be informed and Congress itself will decide how to handle the leak.

In 2001, a House Resolution was brought to the floor making unauthorized disclosure of classified material a felony, but again members of Congress would have still been exempted.

As for Dave Sohmer's question about what sort of non-disclosure agreement members of Congress are held to, here's the jist of it.

glenn1, thanks for the info I guess. I'm not too sure I like it though.

Perhaps there's some reasoning behind it to justify special rules and exemptions for the members of Congress but it's certainly not readily apparent to me. Trusting Congressmen with secrets is like trusting a junkie with a stash of crack and then only making him answerable to his crack buddies.