I think my brother cleared the air on this with this post.
Treasonous Times
The US Code collection is amazingly easy to read, even for someone with no background in law. It's written in plain english, and is mostly free of legalese.
Consider the following from section 1801 of Title 50 of the USC, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, entitled "Electronic Surveillance":
(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(2) any person who—
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
Now, consider the following from section 1802:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order (my emphasis) under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
Next, it's worth taking a look at Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37. This part of the USC deals with the penalties for willfull disclosure and unauthorized possession of defense information:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or 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 or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same 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
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or 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, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it 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.
The law is pretty clear on this, even to a layman. From this it's easy to arrive at the following conclusions:
The President was operating within the law when he authorized electronic surveillance of terror suspects operating within the United States, and;
The New York Times and the person or persons disclosing this information to the Times are both guilty of unauthorized disclosure of defense information.
The Justice department must initiate an immediate investigation into the actions of the New York Times, and force them to reveal their source within the government who provided the information. The administration's political opponents have caused grave damage to national security by revealing this operation, and they should pay the price for doing so.
Update 12-22-05: In retrospect, this is probably not my most well-advised post. Not because I've changed my mind and suddenly think the whole thing is illegal, but because I've violated the rule on writing about things you know. I'm not a lawyer, and I have no legal training. I was considering removing the post, but I think I'll leave it here as a monument to my own arrogance.
thepoolbar.blogspot.com |
