Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Rove, Plame, and espionage

July 13, 2005 By David

There’s been lots of yakkity-yak, here and elsewhere, about whether Karl Rove (or anyone else who leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA identity to the press) has really committed a crime.  I’d say 99.8% of the discussion (including my own) has focused on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which, as has been noted ad nauseam, has very strict requirements and is so tough to use in a prosecution that it’s only happened once.

Several alert commentators, however, have begun to notice that there’s very likely another statute in play here, namely, the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793(d), which reads in pertinent part as follows:

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any … information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted .. the same to any person not entitled to receive it, … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Well, well, well.  No need for a big argument over "covert status" there!  Seems to me the fact that a person is (1) a CIA agent (2) who works on weapons of mass destruction (3) whose identity as a CIA agent is not public knowledge (regardless of whether it’s technically "covert") falls fairly neatly within that descripton – it "relates to the national defense," and any person with half a brain would have "reason to know" that it could be used to injure the US or aid a foreign nation.  A lot of folks on the left as well as the right have been trumpeting the fact that Plame may not have technically been "covert," or that Rove may not have "known" that she was technically "covert," as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act seems to require.  So take a chill pill, everyone: that statute is not the only game in town.  And, really, wouldn’t it actually be more satisfying to indict Rove for "espionage"? 

On a related note, if you didn’t hear Daniel Schorr’s truly excellent commentary on the real meaning of the Plame case, you should listen to it here.  It’s easy to miss the forest for the trees on this one, and Schorr does a great job of putting things back in perspective.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: law-and-lawyers

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.