Plame: Pundits are wrong on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act

[Karmadillo]

This makes me think Rove, despite the silence of the media, is still in deep trouble.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=76&ItemID=8492

<Introduction: The significance of the Plame case was never really about the outing of a CIA operative -- often a noble endeavor -- but about the lengths to which the Bush administration would go to crush any who dared challenge its war plans. Many commentators now claim that whatever else Karl Rove did, he did not violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, with its high standard of proof. In fact, however, as former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega shows below, it seems quite likely that Rove broke this very law in his effort to destroy an administration critic.>

Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

Before presenting any case, a prosecutor like Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame case has to figure out "the elements of the crime"; in other words, the factors he has to prove under whatever statute he is considering. If a grand jury finds probable cause to believe that each element has been proved, it may then return an indictment. At trial, the judge instructs the jury about these same elements. Parties can argue about whether the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but neither side can add, delete, or modify the elements even slightly to suit their arguments.

more...

[chelsea0011]

1. The D.A. will decide if it wants to prosecute and let a jury decide

if the charges are indeed validated with the law. Prosecutors many times overcharge defendants and let the jury decide if they met the criteria of the law.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. kick