Who Says This Isn't Covered?

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime].
Aahh yes... Thanks to TomDispatch (via TomPaine.com) I've finally found a little clarity as to why the hew and cry has been fundamentally non-existent when it comes to Novak's outting of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity. (Sure Rove's machinations have brought forth the ire of my Lib/Progressive compatriots. But even they are often long a unrelated irrationalities of Roves and short on actually demanding Spc Inv Fitzgerald coming up with some charges. Apparently the pundits - both Right & Left - have dismissed that little ditty quoted above as being incapable of being either comprehended or utilized in these circumstances. Er, they say it ain't clear enough to indict anyone in this case or, more importantly maybe, that it is too precise to be of any practical use.

As TomD quite thankfully points out, that is just plain ignorant. He posts an informative and elucidating essay by one Elizabeth de la Vega, which helps to clarify exactly what this Act actually says. I must confess though that I found the lack of linkage for citations an annoyance at best.

Still, Ms. Vega breaks the above quoted paragraph down into its component parts and shows, quite clearly, how it is indeed both relevant and efficacious in getting Justice done vis-a-vie the Plame case.

It is well worth the read.


Popular Posts