In your opinion was Judge Bates right or wrong and should he have addressed the Constitutional issue?
Please explain your answer and try to keep it civilized. Standard Bush bashing will not be granted any consideration.
Forgot to add the link.
- hexeliebeLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
When the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the issue, so will I.
The one thing I will say is that if anyone outside of the current administration had perpetrated such a revelation, they would have either spent the rest of their live in prison or been executed as a traitor.
Valerie Plame became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
If you read page 52 of the Senate intelligence committee report:you will find the following:
According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe Wilson's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.
At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, it was that opinion that served as the impetus for 'outing' a working CIA operative, his wife, Plame.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and otherstatutes and regulations provide a web of authorities for the protection of various types of sensitive information.
The problem is that even before the CLinton administration, Congress has been addressing the holes in such legislation. For example, under 50 U.S.C. § 783, the communication of classified information by a government employee is expressly
punishable only if the discloser knows or has reason to believe the recipient is an agent or representative of a foreign government, but not, for example, if the recipient
is an agent of an international terrorist organization.
The following bibliography will give you some areas of research:
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, P.L. 107-108, § 310 (2001).
The National Security Act of 1947
The Classified Information Protection Act of 2001, H.R. 2943, 107
Letter from John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, to Congress, October15, 2002, reported 148 CONG.REC. S11,732 (daily ed. Nov. 20, 2002), available online at[http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dojleaks.html](Las... visited June 29, 2006).
National defense information is protected by the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793 et seq. The penalty for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information) is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. Thus, under § 793, persons convicted of gathering defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation may be fined or sentenced to no more than 10 years imprisonment.
18 U.S.C. § 793(d)-(f) provides:in part:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document [or other protected thing] relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense . . .
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 to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
I suggest you read United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4thCir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908(1988)(upholding conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 793 for delivery of classified photographs to publisher).
So, to sum up, if you do your own research into the current situation and the history of the above references and case law, you will discover that although Judge Bates was correct in that his court did not have jurisdiction over the matter, this was a technical decision and not one on the merits. That will be decided, if at all, by the U.S. Surpreme Court.
- whiner_coolerLv 41 decade ago
I don’t know why she even brought suit against those people. It was proven and admitted to that Richard Armitage was the sole source of the leak.
I just think that Ms. Plame was just trying to expand her 15 minutes of fame on a worthless suit.
I can’t imagine that there were any Constitutional laws compromised. There was more of a scandal involving Plame and her husband’s political agenda than there was with the present administration.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The lawsuit was a non-starter. Bates had nothing to do with it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It seems that there is no law that will convict this administration of wrong. Sad days are coming to America.