DELTA FORCE (E - - - - - )
8/2/2005 2:59 PM
Report abusive post | CHICAGO POLICE IMPLICATED IN COVER UP OF British MI6 agents
| Quote |
![]( [<a href="http://www.godlikeproductions.com/images/smilies/bush_fing.gif) link to www.godlikeproductions.com] alt=' '>
TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb plot involving British MI6 assets -Part 1:CHICAGO POLICE IMPLICATED IN COVER UP?
by Citizen Spook August 1, 2005
[link to www.citizenspook.blogspot.com]
New evidence and questions emerge after multiple eyewitness accounts have surfaced indicating that the July 18th, 2005, Chicago subway bomb scare caused the most chaotic Chicago Transit Authority travel day in the last ten years and was the subject of a media black out.
And, contradictory Police reports have been published in conflicting Chicago Tribune stories while relevant alerts about the bomb scare, posted on the Chicago Transit Authority´s official web site, have disappeared.
Also, interviews with Chicago Transit Authority spokespeople and Chicago Police department officials from the Division of News Affairs reveal conflicting accounts of the events of July 18th and the Red line shut down by Police request on July 29th, 2005.
[LATE UPDATE: CITIZEN SPOOK HAS INTERVIEWED OFFICIAL CTA SPOKESPEOPLE AND CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS FROM THE NEWS AFFAIRS DIVISION. THOSE INTERVIEWS WERE GUARDED AND THE RESPONSES COMPLETELY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. THE INTERVIEWS WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A FOLLOW UP STORY LATER THIS EVENING. IM STILL WAITING FOR A FEW MORE SOURCES TO ISSUE STATEMENTS BEFORE I GO PUBLIC WITH THE REST OF THIS STORY]
RECAP
On July 19th, 2005, Tom Heneghan & Stew Webb reported:
"French Intelligence and The U.S. Marshall Service Monday night July 18, 2005 caught eight of Tony Blair´s British MI-6 Agents trying to bomb the Chicago Subway system. A shoot out killed 4 British Agents. Four were captured in the act of Terrorism and arrested. The British Agents part of Bush & Blair´s Al Quaida network were charged in Federal Court today with explosives. The British MI-6 Terrorist Cell Operated out of Laidlaw Corp in Chicago."
[link to stewwebb.com]
On July 22nd, 2005, Heneghan was interviewed by Lenny Bloom and Sherman Skolnick of Cloak and Dagger Internet Radio [link to www.cloakanddagger.de]
[link to www.cloakanddagger.de]
The story was updated in that interview to reflect that the incident took place in the subway that runs beneath the Dirksen Federal Courthouse where Patrick Fitzgerald, the Treasongate special prosecutor, is conducting his investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame´s identity.
Between July 19th and July 26th, the story was not reported in the main stream media or anywhere else in the blogosphere except that it was reposted in various internet forums and was relentlessly attacked as being false. The premature debunking of this story centered on allegations there were no news reports detailing any interruption in service within the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) on July 18th, 2005, let alone something of the magnitude allleged by Heneghan and Webb.
Having heard the interview with Heneghan, Bloom and Skolnick, I became intrigued by the story. It didn´t seem logical that a story of this magnitude, if true, could remain hidden from the main stream media, Chicago citizens and the Blogosphere. So, I looked for official reports of service interruptions or bomb scares that might have occirred on July 18th, 2005. I found two small Chicago Tribune recaps which partially confirmed aspects of Heneghan´s account.
And on July 26th, I wrote an article titled, "MI6 Chicago Subway Bombing UPDATE! - partial confirmation" and posted it at [link to www.tomflocco.com] [link to tomflocco.com]
[Since then I have gone live with my own blog... [link to www.citizenspook.blogspot.com] ...please see the virgin story from July 28th...TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For WH Staff]
NEW EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS HAVE EMERGED
The July 26th update of the Chicago subway bomb scare story focussed on two small recaps which appeared at The Chicago Tribune web site, one on July 19th, by Kyra Kyles and another on July 22nd by Virginia Groark. The Tribune stories confirm that the Red line of the CTA was shut down at the Roosevelt station due to a bomb scare on July 18th, 2005. The Red line runs in close proximity under the Dirksen Federal Courthouse where Patrick Fitzgerald´s Grand Jury investigation is centered.
July 19th Trib story:
[link to pqasb.pqarchiver.com]
search "Kyles"
July 22nd Trib story:
[link to www.chicagotribune.com]
The Tribune articles state that the Red Line was shut down for about 40-45 minutes and commuters were very confused by the CTA´s inability to redirect or inform them. Commuters were given no direction on how to make their way home and the CTA was unable to tell them why the subway was shut down.
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE STORIES CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER
There´s an unusual discrepancy between the two Tribune stories. Kyra Kiles´ story of July 19th stated that the station was shut down because of a "suspicious package" left on the platform. But Virginia Groark´s story of July 22nd contradicted this, stating that the station was shut down due to a bomb threat which was "phoned in" to the Police.
So the Tribune accounts, running three days apart in the same newspaper, completely contradict each other. And just yesterday, July 31st, I became aware of an alarming number of eyewitness accounts, reported by angry Chicago commuters to a blog called The CTA Tattler which testify to the unprecedented chaos caused to commuters because of the Red Line shut down. This chaos wasn´t addressed sufficiently in the Tribune accounts and was the subject of a comprehensive media blackout.
The confusion between the Kyles and Groark stories is not cleared up or even addressed by Virginia Groark in her story of July 22nd. If Kyra Kyles´ story was wrong, and there was no suspicious package left on the platform, why wasn´t that issue addressed by Virginia Groark in her later story of July 22nd?
From Kyra Kyles Trib story:
"A report of a suspicious package left on the platform of the CTA Red Line station at Roosevelt Road and State Street caused an underground station evacuation and rerouting of subway service for approximately 40 minutes on Monday, according to Carlos Herrera, Police spokesman...
Members of the police bomb and arson as well as the canine unit reported to the scene and investigated a package near a garbage can, according to Herrera...
The package was determined to be an item left behind by an unidentified passenger, and underground service at the station was restored shortly after 5:30 p.m., Herrera said."
Why didn´t they mention what the "item" was that the unidentified passenger left behind?
From Virginia Groark´s July 22nd Trib story:
"CTA customers pointed to an incident Monday night when someone called in a bomb threat for the Red Line´s Roosevelt stop, prompting Chicago Police to close the station for 45 minutes...
"Monday´s incident began shortly before 4:40 p.m. when someone phoned in a bomb threat, police said."
The contradictions are disturbing because the source is the Chicago Police Department. Kyles´ and Groark´s accounts contradict each other because their source, the Chicago Police Department, has contradicted itself.
In Kyles´ story of July 19th, Carlos Herrera of the Chicago Police is on the record claiming there was a "suspicious package" left on the platform which was examined and found to be harmless. But Groark´s July 22nd story quotes the Chicago Police as stating that a bomb threat was "phoned in". Groark´s story does NOT mention a suspicious package.
There are no contradictions between the time and location of the bomb scare, so the conflicting Chicago Police accounts, as to whether the Red Line was shut down because of a "suspicious package" versus a "phoned in" bomb threat, indicate that Chicago Police might be implicated in a cover up.
This theory is supported by the incredible facts that have emerged (see below) indicating that neither the CTA nor the Chicago Police had any idea what was going on in their subway system on July 18th, 2005. Or in the alternative, they were instructed not to inform the citizens of Chicago what the problem was.
The July 19th expose posted at [link to www.stewwebb.com] does not include the Chicago Police in their account of the alleged shoot out between British MI6 agents and the US Marshal aided by French intelligence agents. And according to Sherman Skolnick, the official record pertaining to the arrest of four MI6 agents has been sealed by Fitzgerald´s Grand Jury.
If the Chicago Police and the CTA were in the dark concerning the events of July 18th, such confusion might have been deliberate by Federal agents ordered to prevent a Diplomatic nightmare scenario while various Governments investigate the facts.
CTA CONFUSION
From Virginia Groark´s July 22nd story:
"Riders acknowledged it was a difficult time of day but said they were not given information to make intelligent choices about the best way home. Some said CTA employees still didn´t know what was going on more than hour after the threat was reported.
Matt Greer, 28, arrived at the Grand stop on the Red Line about 5:05 p.m. and was greeted by two Chicago police officers working there who said the station was closed... ´They were completely uninformed about the whole situation, so that was frustrating," Greer said. "For all I knew, the whole system was down. They wouldn´t tell us anything´...
Monday´s incident began shortly before 4:40 p.m. when someone phoned in a bomb threat, police said. Police shut down the Roosevelt Station from 4:40 to 5:25 p.m., but no bomb was discovered and no arrests have been made."
Groark´s story highlights another contradiction regarding the timeline for the Red Line shut down. The Chicago Police are on record stating the entire shut down lasted just 45 minutes, between 4:40 p.m. when the alleged bomb threat was called in and 5:25 when the Red Line was reopened. But Groark´s report also states:
"Some said CTA employees still didn´t know what was going on more than an hour after the threat was reported."
That statement is been supported by numerous eyewitness accounts from Chicago commuters posted at a web site that deals specifically with the Chicago Transit Authority, The CTA Tattler. [link to kjo84.typepad.com]
From the CTA Tattler, July 19, 2005:
´Messy rush hour caused by unattended package What a mess rush hour was last night on CTA rail lines. An unattended package forced evacuation of a Red Line train at Roosevelt at about 4:45 pm. Passengers were herded off the train and then led to the elevated tracks in the Loop, where Red Line trains were sitting above ground taking on delayed passengers..."
The final sentence of the CTA Tattler account is chilling:
"The CTA was its usual reticent self. Though it did post this terse announcement on its Web site."
It´s chilling because the so called "terse announcement" has been removed from the CTA´s official site and the link provided by the CTA Tattler leads to a dead end.
[link to www.transitchicago.com]
The official CTA web site archive, which goes all the way back to 1998, does not exhibit information about the July 18th service disruptions and neither does its "customer alert" archive. [link to www.transitchicago.com]
The Bulletin Board from ( [link to www.lifeduringwartime.net)] Life During Wartime holds the following commentary:
"In the midst of my commute home yesterday I was stopped from getting on the redline by a cop. Snapping out of my end of the day stupor I noticed that all the train entrances were blocked by cops and a crowd of bewildered commuters was swiftly forming. Most people were asking the cops about directions, other routes, etc. I asked what the deal was. ´Sir, if someone told me I couldn´t do something I wouldn´t waste my time asking why´. Uh, okay. ´Well, I was just curious as to why...´ ´Sir, you know what they say happened to the cat. You might have heard about the bomb-ing? The one in Lon-don?´ ´Yeah so was it a bomb threat then or what?´ ´Sir, if I knew that the train station was closed I´d be smart enough to just get away from the area´. "Alright. Thanks jackass." Of course I was walking away when I said the jackass part. If theres a threat, shouldn´t they just tell people?... When I got home after a ride on the most ridiculously over packed bus I´ve ever been on I checked the cta site. It said something about the redline being closed for a police activity...Nothing about it on the news last night either." [link to www.websitetoolbox.com] by joshden
Apparently, the CTA site didn´t mention a bomb scare being "phoned in" nor did it mention a "suspicious package" having been left on the platform. It apparently said the Red Line was close for "a police actvivity."
Other incidents the week prior to July 18th were handled in a routine manner by an informed CTA and Chicago Police. Confusion was not the protocol. Pay attention to the following eyewitness accounts (posted at the CTA Tattler site) of Chicago commuters. Reading the statements posted, one gets the impression July 18th was an unprecedented evening of chaos. Commuters report that the CTA and Chicago Police were unable to tell hem what was happening or how to get home.
The following two anecdotes describe a "crime scene" at Roosevelt Station:
"I also entered the CTA "system" after 5PM yesterday and heard an unintelligible announcement being made on the "PA". I asked a CTA employee what had been announced and he informed me that the Red Line trains were running on the elevated tracks instead of in the subway but he didn´t know why...When I de-trained (a Frank Kruesi term) at Roosevelt I found State Street had been cordoned off as a ´crime scene´ and mucho polizei walking about. Also some News cameras were present - but no body seemed to know what was actually going on..."
[link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Ron
It looks like the media was there and chose not to report it, so further verification is necessary.
And:
"...I went to the Grand Red Line station at about 5:05 and noticed Chicago police officers stationed at all four entrances with swarms of angry commuters shouting at them. I asked one of the officers if it was only the Grand stop that was closed or if it was the entire Red Line. He just shouted "I can´t tell you what I don´t know!" Nothing about the Red Line being rerouted, no CTA employees directing us to alternatives, we were just left hanging there..."
[link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Matt
This previous comment tells us that the Grand Station was also surrounded by Police. A scan of the CTA map of the area shows that Grand is six stops from Roosevelt on the Red Line. [link to www.transitchicago.com]
So, if there was a "suspicious package" left at the Roosevelt stop, why would they have the Grand station surrounded by Police? And how many other stations were surrounded by police? The broad police activity does not make sense if the incident was caused by a package left behind on the Roosevelt Station platform, a package that turned out to be harmless.
Perhaps it was the public realization of the massive service interruption which caused the authorities to change the official story with the July 22nd Tribune piece. A "phoned in" bomb threat would provide a more logical excuse for shutting the system down in such an expansive manner.
The following two comments contradict the official timeline. The first claims there was no service on the Red Line until 6:35 p.m., a full hour later than the time given by Chicago Police:
"Unaware of what was going on, I arrived at a Loop Red Line stop at 5:40 p.m. last night. There were no CTA personnel or authorities keeping people away from the station. There were no announcements made. Nobody knew what was going on, or that we might want to consider an alternate route home. The first train in the subway arrived at 6:35 p.m... [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Norm
And:
"The CTA said the trains were back to normal by 5:26pm, but at 5:50pm 2 red line trains stopped at clark/lake and I saw another one go around the loop." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by cmama
The confusion is well documented:
"...I watched all 5 9/10 pm news broadcasts and saw nothing, although it seemed CBS-2 did a tease right before 10, but I didn´t see the actual story. I can´t believe how fast these stories disappear! This is probably the WORST delay I´ve faced in 10 years of almost-daily CTA travel... I don´t know when we stopped just before North, but I checked my watch and it was 6:15. So, we were easily there 20 minutes or more... So we spent about a half-hour stalled less than a block from my stop (North/Sedgwick). I seriously considered asking if the windows opened so I could crawl out... When the train started again, I eagerly leapt up--and the train DIDN´T STOP AT NORTH!... Again, we never got any announcement about 1) what happened with the subway tracks, 2) why everything was so slow, 3) what stops we´d stop at. Of course it didn´t stop at Armitage either. So we finally got to Fullerton. And after a 90-min ride that should have been 25 minutes... And then, as if the inept/arrogrant CTA...weren´t bad enough, the news media doesn´t care enough to report it..." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Katherine
More about the CTA employees not knowing what was going on:
"Monday I got on a north bound brown line train at Randolph/Wabash at about 5:10pm but didn´t get off at Armitage until 6 freaking PM!!! One automated announcement while we sat and simmered on the packed train. When I got off at Armitage (not even my stop but I couldn´t stand on that train any longer) and asked the attendant what the delay was, he YELLED at me that he didn´t know. Excuse me?..." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by JM
And:
"...Fortunately I didn´t have to ride last night, but as I turned onto State Street to get to Union, I saw the lady screaming at the driver and banging on the windows. And the only uniformed type person I saw at all was at the top of the stairs that are in front of Marshall Fields, holding a walkie talkie and telling someone "no I don´t know what´s going on, all I know is the train isn´t running". [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Jenn
And:
"A lot of last night´s congestion would have been reduced if people had just been informed what was going on so they could have made alternate arrangements..." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Christine
The entire system was ground to a halt, not just the Red Line:
"maybe this is a stupid question, but what is the point of rerouting the red line trains if it is going to cause the entire system to screech to a halt? the red line trains don´t even fit into the brown line stations! all i know is that it took me at least 45 minutes (not including the time spent waiting on the platform) to get from the loop to Sedgwick on the brown line and when we finally pulled into Sedgwick i was so frustrated/claustraphobic/sweaty that i had to get off the train (like many others) and take a cab the rest of the way home...seems like it would have made much more sense to at least keep the brown and purple lines running normally so that SOME people could get out of the loop. instead, every person travelling north from the loop during rush hour got completely screwed. perhaps shuttle buses would have been a more effective way for red line riders to get where they needed to go? that´s just my 2 cents." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Katie
And:
"i went through the turnstiles at the chicago brown line at 5:05. no passengers seemed to know they´d be facing delays; no CTA staff seemed interested in letting us know. i waited through 4 red line trains (one of which did not open the doors at all--it just stopped and sat for a couple of minutes), 4 purple line trains, and 2 brown line trains before i elbowed my way on to the 3rd brown line train at...6:05. twenty minutes later, we arrived at sedgwick. twenty minutes after our two-minute stop there, we reached armitage. things cleared a bit after that, but it was still slow, crowded, uninformed going after that, until i reached western at 7:05. a friend of mine left the chicago platform at about 5:45 and raced me home via the chicago-->western bus plan. we tied. i kept thinking "if i was on my bike, i would have been home an hour-and-a-damn-half ago." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Matt
A deficiency in the Chicago Tribune story?
"... there is an article on the Trib site that is so brief it makes this whole thing sound like a minor hiccup ... and I can´t find any mention of this on the Sun Times site. Guess they all drive to work." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by ugh
RED FLAGS
Why are there two conflicting stories being given by the Chicago Police?
Why did the Chicago Tribune report two different stories instead of cancelling the July 19th story and correcting the record with the July 22nd story?
Why was the CTA and the Chicago Police not able to provide commuters with proper information? Could the answer be that Federal authorities had taken jurisdiction?
If the story was clear to the Police, they would have communicated to the CTA and the CTA would have communicated this information to its commuters.
NOBODY KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
And we still don´t know. If the Heneghman and Webb July 19th story is correct, the CTA/Police confusion on July 18th would make sense. Facing a shoot out and chase within the Chicago subway, the Feds would have taken control freezing the Chicago Police out. Many stations would´ve been shut down as the incident progressed as the bombers tried to carry out the attack,or, in the alternative, attempted escape through the subway carrying, or privy to, powerful explosives. This is still in the realm of conjecture, but enough complications have been documented to merit a more in depth investigation.
The CTA employees were not able to provide clear instructions to the commuters. The Chicago Police at the time of the incident, according to eyewitness reports, were just as in the dark as the commuters on July 18th. And in the aftermath the Chicago Police gave conflicting stories to the Chicago Tribune. Why did the entire CTA become crippled and thrown into chaos? Could it be that the Chicago Police, the CTA and the commuters were purposely kept in the dark by Federal authorities trying to avoid an international diplomatic catastrophy?
Perhaps the most interesting part of this story took place on July 29nd, 2005. The CTA Tattler reported:
"The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that the Red Line subway was shut down at about 12:30 today due to ´police activity.´ The CTA Web site reports that the subway was reopened at about 1:40 p.m. The Red Line ran above ground on the Brown Line tracks until then..." [link to kjo84.typepad.com]
The official CTA site has removed the comment once again. [link to www.transitchicago.com]
Eyewtiness reports to the CTA Tattler had this to say:
"I was on the red line today. The power on the train cut off right as we pulled into Fullerton. The operator made an annoucement about police activity and the usual we hope to be moving soon´..." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by eelaris
And:
"I was stuck behind the station where the supposed ´police action´ was occuring for about 50 minutes. It had to be at least 110 degrees in there with no airconditioning on probably the most crowded train I´ve ever been on. Was one of the worst things I´ve ever had to endure. People were scared out of their minds what with the London bombings and all. CTA really dropped the ball by not giving us more information. We had no idea if it was a bomb, an electrical outage, or some dumbass on the tracks. At about the 45 minute mark, people really started to panic and fights were breaking out about whether to open the doors and walk back to the station (which would have needed group consensus because there was barely enough room for people to walk single file). It was horrible." [link to kjo84.typepad.com] posted by Ad.
What was the mysterious "police activity" the Red Line was shut down for?
DEVELOPING LIKE A RUN AWAY TRAIN....
By Citizen Spook
[link to www.citizenspook.blogsot.com]
PLEASE REPOST EVERYWHERE
posted by citizenspook at 11:13 AM
Thursday, July 28, 2005
TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff.
The controlling law for Treasongate has been greatly ignored by the main stream media and the blogosphere. This article seeks to clarify the controlling law.
To determine the controlling law, all one needs to do is read the non-disclosure agreement Karl Rove and all of the members of the Bush administration with security clearance signed which included the following statement:
"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982."
Sanctions for a breach of the non-disclosure agreement are provided for by Executive Order, but those sanctions are ancillary to the United States Code provisions cited in the paragraph above which stand alone.
Please notice that the Title 18 United States Code statutes are separate statutes that precede the first mention of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act". The complicated "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" of 1982 which has been exclusively discussed by the media is not controlling. Rove and company may be guilty of violating that act, but prior United States Code statutory law and Federal case law, specifically 18 USC 793 as interpreted by United States v. Morison (and related cases) has been breached and should lead to convictions under the facts known to the public at large. 18 USC 793 provides for a maximum of ten years in prison to those convicted under this statute.
Analysis of the law and precedent regarding 18 USC 793 indicates that the facts known to the public in the Plame case may be sufficient to guarantee convictions because the statute does not require that the information leaked be "classified". Certainly, the information leaked in the Plame case was classified as "SECRET" in a State Department memo circulated from and to White House staff, but that classification is not necessary for convictions under sections of Title 18 statutes.
18 USC 793 does not require that officials responsible for disclosing information about Valerie Plame had to know she was "covert" or under cover. Discussed in great detail below, the statute only requires that the information leaked be related to the national defense and that the individual responsible for disclosing that information have a reasonable belief that the information could be used to the detriment of the USA. Ths legal test is much easier to meet than the test put forth in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Furthermore, the highest courts in the USA that have studied this issue already address the defensive arguments forwarded in Treasongate. And it is clear that arguments which might stand a chance in a defense to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, will fail as a defense to charges brought under 18 USC 793, 794 and 641.
[If 18 USC 794 has also been breached, that statute provides a maximum sentence of the death penalty for those convicted "in a time of war". Analysis of 18 USC 794 and 18 U.S.C. @ 641 will be the subject of a future article by this author. The focus of this study will center upon 18 USC 793(d), which is the statute most likely to return convictions in the Plame matter. Sections 794 and 641 may also have been violated, but those issues are slightly more difficult to prove. Please note that in 2002, the Bush administration used 18 U.S.C. @ 641 to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about Drug Enforcement Administration files.]
It has been reported in various publications that a State Department memo was circulated among members of The White House staff indicating that the paragraph containing Valerie Plame´s name was marked with an "[S]" meaning the information in that paragraph was classified as "Secret". EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, signed by President Bush on March 25, 2003 explains the various levels of classified information:
"2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized
disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. "
The classified State Department memorandum central to the federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a certain indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified.
18 USC 793(d) states:
"d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over,
or being entrusted with any document, writing...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, ....[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Part (e) states, "Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to....", and is thereafter identical to section (d). (This section could possibly lead to a conviction of Novak as well and will be the subject of a future article.)
Please note that the statute does not require the information be "classified", it only requires that the info be related to "national defense".
Valerie Plame was working on weapons of mass destruction for the CIA. Nothing could be more related to national defense.
The application of this law has been clearly and concisely handled in United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 US 908, 109 S.Ct. 259, 102 L.Ed.2d 247 (1988). [link to www.mtsu.edu]
John Ashcroft cited this case in his letter to Congress of October 22, 2003, "Although there is no single statute that provides criminal penalties for all types of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, unauthorized disclosures of classified information fall within the scope of various current statutory criminal prohibitions. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988)."
Samuel Loring Morison was charged with releasing copies of three photographs, classified "secret ", to Jane´s Defense Weekly ("Jane´s"), a British magazine. Count I of the Indictment charged that Morison wilfully caused the photographs, which allegedly related to the national defense, to be transmitted to a person not entitled to receive them, in violation of 18 U.S.C. @ 793(d).
The court stated: The relevant law under which Morison is charged in Counts I and III is found in 18 U.S.C. @ 793(d) and (e), part of a broader espionage statute. Section 793(d) provides that whoever, having authorized possession or control of a document or photograph, relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense, which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States, and who wilfully delivers it to any person not entitled to receive it,...is guilty of the offense..."
Notice the standard, "could be used to the injury of the United States". Obviously, "could" is a much broader standard than "would". In plain language, the statute says, if it was reasonably foreseeable that the information disclosed could possibly effect the national defense, the person responsible for the leak is guilty under the statute. Morison argued that the term ´national defense" was too vague, but the court didn´t buy it, stating:
"Morison´s first attack on Sections 793(d) and (e) is that the term "relating to the national defense" is impermissibly vague and fails to give fair warning of what documents are covered by the statute. This argument relies heavily on the Supreme Court´s reasoning in Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 85 L. Ed. 488, 61 S. Ct. 429 (1941)...
The government has responded to this assertion by noting that the statute does contain an intent requirement, although not the same requirement that was contained in the Gorin statute. Sections 793(d) and (e) require that the acts be done "wilfully;" if the transmitted item is "information", "which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States"...
The government contends that if a defendant, "such as Morison, wilfully transmits photographs relating to the national defense to someone who is known by the defendant not to be entitled to receive it, the defendant has violated 793(d) no matter how laudable his motives." According to the plain language of the statute, the government´s interpretation is correct. Thus, although there is an intent requirement, the "delimiting" intent to injure the United States is not present in this statute and defendant argues that it is therefore impermissibly vague. Unfortunately for the defendant´s argument, the Fourth Circuit has addressed this issue and found that a similar statute was not unconstitutionally vague. In United States v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1978), the Fourth Circuit construed 18 U.S.C. @ 793(f),... "
PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE COURT´S FOLLOWING TWO PARAGRAPHS:
"As the District Court noted in Dedeyan, "certainly injury to the United States could be inferred from conduct of the sort charged," whether that conduct involves photographing documents by one foreign agent or release of national defense information to the press and public, where many foreign agents and governments can have access to the information.
In Dedeyan, the defendant was accused of knowing that the document had been abstracted by his cousin, a Russian spy, and failed to report it. Here, the situation is slightly different because it does not involve a foreign agent or the classic spy scenario. Rather, the defendant is accused of releasing classified information to the press, thus exposing that classified information to every foreign agent and government, hostile or not, in the world."
That is directly on point as to the leak of Plame´s name to Novak and others.
The court´s decision in Morison further stated:
"Finally, the danger to the United States is just as great when this information is released to the press as when it is released to an agent of a foreign government. The fear in releasing this type of information is that it gives other nations information concerning the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. That fear is realized whether the information is released to the world at large or whether it is released only to specific spies."
The acquiescence to abide by the Government´s determination of classified information of those who sign this agreement was discussed by the Morison Court:
"Defendant next argues that the phrase "not entitled to receive" is also unconstitutionally vague, in that it fails to inform a citizen of whether his conduct is prohibited... The government has responded by pointing out that under no circumstances is that statute unconstitutionally vague when applied to this defendant, who clearly knew by virtue of his security clearance and his signing of an agreement that classified information and documents were not to be transmitted to outsiders....Applying that same principle here, it seems clear that authorization to possess documents and entitlement to receive them may be determined by reference to the classification system under which the defendant worked. "
Clearly, Bush administration officials had knowledge that the Government´s decision as to what is classified and what is not, could not be circumvented since they signed the non-disclosure agreement.
Those following the issues raised by the non-disclosure agreement should not get bogged down by the sanctions provided for in EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292 because the more serious legal breaches are contained in the United States Code which has a settled line of case law discussing everything the media pundits are now spinning.
The Morison Court continued the discussion:
"Congress has recognized the classification system and given its support to the determination by Executive Order of who is authorized to possess and who is not authorized to possess classified information,...
Since these executive orders are issued in fulfillment of the President´s Constitutional responsibilities, they have the force and effect of law....The phrase "not entitled to receive" is not at all vague when discussed in reference with the classification system, which clearly sets out who is entitled to receive (those with proper security clearances and the "need to know") and Morison was certainly aware of the proscripts of the classification system. Defendant has argued that even if this construction is given to the statute, the statute is impermissibly vague because then an individual would be left to make the determination of who has the "need to know," and therefore the right to receive classification information. There can be no argument of such vagueness here, where the defendant released the information to Jane´s, which had neither a security clearance or a need to know.... "
THE INTENT OF THE TREASONGATE LEAKERS IS IRRELEVANT
It matters not that Rove and others may claim they were just setting the record straight regarding details of Ambassador Wilson´s trip. Regarding this type of defense, the Court in Morison stated:
"Morison urges that the requirement that acts be done wilfully translates to a requirement that they be done with some evil purpose and that if he acted with an intent to inform the public he did not have the requisite evil purpose. He urges this Court to adopt a construction of the word wilfully used in Hartzel v. United States, 322 U.S. 680, 686, 88 L. Ed. 1534, 64 S. Ct. 1233 (1944). In that case, the court, noting that the statute was a highly penal one restricting freedom of expression, held that the word "wilful" must be taken to mean "deliberately and with a specific purpose to do the acts proscribed by Congress." In another sentence, the Court referred to this "evil purpose;" however, in the rest of the opinion the court refers only to the specific intent to do the evil prohibited by the statute, i.e., causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, or mutiny. That case did not require"evil purpose" as the defendant reads it, but only required that the prohibited acts be done deliberately and with a specific purpose to do that which was prohibited. In Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d at 919, the court discussed the trial court´s instruction that "wilfully" meant "not prompted by an honest mistake as to one´s duties, but prompted by some personal or underhanded motive" and apparently approved such an instruction. It seems clear that the defendant here will not find much comfort in his defense that he did what he did with good intentions, unless he can also assert a defense that he did not do so "wilfully."
So, Karl Rove and others involved who may have shared classified information cannot assert a defense that they had "good intentions" since their activities were "willful" in that they intended to share the classified information (or even unclassified information relating to the national defense which "could" lead to the USA being injured).
The reasons Bush administration officials may have had for willfully sharing information about Valerie Plame´s status at the CIA is totally irrelevant as is the distinction between offering her name to the press as oppopsed to simply confirming for a reporter that she worked at the CIA, regardless of whether her CIA status was covert.
I reiterate, if any Bush administration officials disclosed or confirmed any information relating to the national defense that could possibly injure the USA, such official is guilty of violating 18 USC 793. They are guilty whether they saw the classified State Department memo or not under the simple test of 18 USC 793 as set forth by the Court in Morison. Of course, if they did see the State Department memo classified as SECRET, the conviction is that much esier to prove and the penalty will probably be more severe.
Now we turn our attention to United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 556 (4th Cir. 2000) . [link to www.usdoj.gov]
In that case, the question presented to the court was, whether the district court improperly defined the terms "connected with the national defense" and "relating to the national defense" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 793 and 794.
The Court´s decision in that case cuts right through the media talking point alleging that Valerie Plame´s status was not covert. Indeed, the issue of public knowledge of the classified information is not relevant to the issue of whether the leaker broke the law. The Court stated:
"The term "national defense" is a broad term which refers to the United States military and naval establishments and to all related activities of national preparedness.
To prove that documents, writings, photographs or information relate to the national defense, there are two things that the Government must prove. First, it must prove that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States. And second, it must prove that the material is closely held by the United States government.
To prove that documents, writings, photographs or information relate to the national defense, there are two things that the Government must prove. First, it must prove that the disclosure of the material would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States. And second, it must prove that the material is closely held by the United States government. "
This first test is met if the disclosure "might" be useful to an enemy of the USA. Valerie Plame was working on weapons of mass destruction issues at a time of war. The paragraph her name appears in on the State Department memo was officially classified as SECRET by the US Government. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, signed by President Bush defines SECRET:
"Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."
The information regarding Valerie Plame in the State Department memo is statutorily defined as information which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security of the USA. There is no argument available to the future defendants which can change that status.
For purposes of part two of the test announced by the Court in Squillacote, it is irrelevant whether Rove or others saw the memo including the paragraph with Valerie Plame´s info marked as SECRET because the classification in the memo of that information as being SECRET proves that the material is closely held by the United States government.
Disclosure of that information was potentially damaging to the USA according to 18 USC 793(d) and Executive Order 13292.
The court further stated:
"This Court has never held that information in classified government documents ceases to "relat[e] to the national defense," within the meaning of the espionage statutes, whenever such information may be found somewhere in the public domain. Nor has any court of appeals made such a holding."
So, it will not do those involved in Treasongate any good to argue that some people in the public domain knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The court went on to address a very similar fact pattern:
"The Second Circuit did not hold, as petitioners suggest, that a closely held government document ceases to "relate to the national defense," for purposes of the espionage statutes, whenever the information in the document may be found in the public domain...
The court of appeals explained that "there is a special significance to our government´s own official estimates of its strengths and weaknesses, or those of a potential enemy," because such estimates "carry with them the government´s implicit stamp of correctness," which "in and of itself is a fact that would be highly valuable to other countries...
Finally, if the government had to bear the burden of proving that the information on which an espionage prosecution is based "was not lawfully available in the public domain" at the time of its dissemination, as petitioners urge (Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted)), the government´s ability to bring such prosecutions would be severely impaired. The government would effectively be required "to prove, at least as to some piece of information contained in the document, that no person anywhere in the world had ever publicly speculated about that information"...
As the court of appeals recognized, "[r]equiring that kind of ´proof of a negative´ would unduly hamper the government´s ability to protect sensitive information and would render successful prosecutions in cases involving closely-held documents nearly impossible." Ibid. No court has suggested that the government must bear such a burden."
The law does not create an exception for releasing classified information that may already be in the public domain. It makes no difference if Valerie Plame was known to some people somewhere in the world as a CIA Agent.
The applicable statutes were violated regardless. In conclusion, I find it quite incredible that the main stream media, and for that matter the blogosphere as well, has failed to bring these very applicable statutes and court decisions to the immediate attention of the People of the USA.
PLEASE REPOST CITIZEN SPOOK citizenspook@hotmail.com |
|
