The Controlling Law

[slaveplanet]

courtesy of citizenspook's Blog-

The controlling law for Treasongate has been greatly ignored by the main stream media and the blogosphere. This article seeks to clarify the controlling law.

To determine the controlling law, all one needs to do is read the non-disclosure agreement Karl Rove and all of the members of the Bush administration with security clearance signed which included the following statement:

"I have been advised I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982."

Sanctions for a breach of the non-disclosure agreement are provided for by Executive Order, but those sanctions are ancillary to the United States Code provisions cited in the paragraph above which stand alone.

Please notice that the Title 18 United States Code statutes are separate statutes that precede the first mention of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act". The complicated "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" of 1982 which has been exclusively discussed by the media is not controlling. Rove and company may be guilty of violating that act, but prior United States Code statutory law and Federal case law, specifically 18 USC 793 as interpreted by United States v. Morison (and related cases) has been breached and should lead to convictions under the facts known to the public at large. 18 USC 793 provides for a maximum of ten years in prison to those convicted under this statute.

more...long

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

[JDPriestly]

1. Thanks for the heads up.

[slaveplanet]

2. you're welcome

I thought this was a good backgrounder...

[JDPriestly]

3. This is great information.

I realize it is not controversial, but let's keep it kicked anyway.

[slaveplanet]

4. more

So, Karl Rove and others involved who may have shared classified information cannot assert a defense that they had "good intentions" since their activities were "willful" in that they intended to share the classified information (or even unclassified information relating to the national defense which "could" lead to the USA being injured).

The reasons Bush administration officials may have had for willfully sharing information about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA is totally irrelevant as is the distinction between offering her name to the press as oppopsed to simply confirming for a reporter that she worked at the CIA, regardless of whether her CIA status was covert.

I reiterate, if any Bush administration officials disclosed or confirmed any information relating to the national defense that could possibly injure the USA, such official is guilty of violating 18 USC 793. They are guilty whether they saw the classified State Department memo or not under the simple test of 18 USC 793 as set forth by the Court in Morison. Of course, if they did see the State Department memo classified as SECRET, the conviction is that much esier to prove and the penalty will probably be more severe.

and more since he gave permission...

The law does not create an exception for releasing classified information that may already be in the public domain. It makes no difference if Valerie Plame was known to some people somewhere in the world as a CIA Agent.

The applicable statutes were violated regardless. In conclusion, I find it quite incredible that the main stream media, and for that matter the blogosphere as well, has failed to bring these very applicable statutes and court decisions to the immediate attention of the People of the USA.

PLEASE REPOST CITIZEN SPOOK

[tabasco]

5. A lot of Code sections.

A lot of indictments.

These crooks are going down HARD !

Prison time for Rove or a pardon which will expose the criminals for what they are (to those who don't already know).