"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." (United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3).
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States". (18 USC § 2381).
I have been searching for clear distinctions in kind between Cheney et al.'s outing of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame and the most recent WikiLeaks data dump.
For the most part it has been a fruitless exercise.
Both CheneyLeaks and WikiLeaks released confidential information that risked American and/or foreign associates' lives and the safety of their families. The CheneyLeaks information seems to have provided aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States, and we presume that is true for WikiLeaks as well.
The differences between them do not seem to rise to the level of qualitative distinctions, but they are worth noting as others may come to different conclusions.
WikiLeaks purportedly allowed pre-screening of the cables so that information that could endanger lives could be identified and redacted, but the United States, we are told, did not avail itself of that opportunity. CheneyLeaks, by contrast, forced its exposé down the throats of fellow-traveler columnists some of whom declined to publish, while others published despite being told by the CIA that they should not. One may not, however, wish to give too much credit to WikiLeaks on those grounds because it is impossible to know how many of those redactions it would have accepted.
WikiLeaks is releasing 250,000 cables, dwarfing the amount of information from CheneyLeaks. Much of the information that WikiLeaks appears to consider so key, however, such as attitudes toward the Iranian regime in the middle east, were among the worst kept secrets in the world. Nonetheless, the cables were classified so that their leak arguably constitutes criminal acts. Perhaps 250,000 criminal acts. And, their release arguably risks the lives and safety of Americans and others working with them.
CheneyLeaks, by contrast, released just a single piece of classified information. Nonetheless, as depicted in Fair Game, that information may have directly led to the deaths of people working with American operatives. We do not know about American operatives themselves. It also shut-down a key US counterintelligence operations directed at WMD in the Middle East. Because of the cover-up, and because of the primacy of keeping such information secret, we may never know how deep and broad the damage was.
CheneyLeaks also deliberately released disinformation on WMD to reporters such as Judith Miller who was working for the New York Times, and then quoted the New York Times pretending that was an independent source, to make the case to invade and occupy Iraq. Probably no crime there...but, it is interesting to note that if a Chief Executive of a publicly-traded corporation had done something analogous -- e.g., spread false information about their competitors' products and then quote back that information to investors as sourced in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal to provide a misleading imprimatur of legitimacy -- the company could be fined and its executives jailed for committing 'fraud-on-the-market'.
CheneyLeaks engineered an elaborate cover-up of its release of Valerie Plame's identity and released disinformation about her covert status. That is the "we-didn't-do-it,-but,-if-we-did, -there-was-nothing-to-what-we-did-anyhow" argument. WikiLeaks, by contrast, appears to be eager to take credit for its behavior and the importance and consequences of its actions.
CheneyLeaks will, of course, argue that it was authorized to de-classify information, and thus cannot be held criminally liable for de-classification. That is an arguable proposition, since it is likely that CheneyLeaks did not go through established de-classification processes, and thus its de-classification might be rendered invalid.
Moreover, it is not relevant. The crimes of improper de-classification and Treason are different. If a Vice-President, with authority to declassify, handed over defense secrets to an enemy, he might not have illegally disclosed classified information, but that disclosure might still be Treason.
Look above at the definitions of Treason in the US Constitution and US Code.
Do CheneyLeaks and WikiLeaks have different levels of alleged culpability? Is there enough to make a prima facie case against either, both, or neither?
how could we have forgotten, so soon?
thanks for reminding us about Cheneyleaks.
I guess it makes an angle for getting out a story, some story, any damn story, in the face of a bad case of writer's block — coupled with moral cowardice.
Wikileaks publishes whistle-blower material; original, not self-authored credible documentation of the malevolent actions of institutions, whether those institutions be commercial, political or governmental.
Wikileaks' small crew of dedicated staff has exposed incontrovertible evidence of deception, theft, fraud, extortion, kidnapping, torture, warprofiteering, murder, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice — crimes taking place on a massive scale.
and they've done so knowing they were unprotected by any powerful forces whatsoever, and that they could in fact expect attack in every dimension by the world's most powerful commercial, legal and political forces.
oh, and thanks to the repellent reflexes of corpomedia "mavens" like Mr. Abrams, that they'd also probably be smeared by the resentment and jealousy of the failed Fourth Estate as well.
Cheney's crew outed a government agent in retaliation ("pour encourager les autres", i.e. its deterrent value) for Ambassador Joe Wilson's having exposed the falsity of a key component of the trumped-up case for war being pushed forward by the Bush Junta, the crew that stole the 2000 election with the help of no less than our corrupt and partisan Supreme Court.
the disparity in power of the actors *alone* utterly disqualifies any notion of "equivalency" on its face.
The law, however, is a different animal. You may like what WikiLeaks did (and I do point out they claim to have provided govts the opportunity to redact to save lives), but it does not mean it does not run afoul of the law. I don't like what Cheney did, but unless he violated the law, there is nothing much that could be done.
You are correct in one respect. I thought the outrage over WikiLeaks was a good opportunity to point out what CheneyLeaks did that sparked insufficient outrage. Once the Libby trial began, I was one of the first, if not the first, to point out that what Libby had described was providing aid-and-comfort, etc. Although your comments are negative, I did achieve that result. Thank you.
surely you understand how utterly irredeemably bankrupt the status quo corpomedia "balance" trope is now exposed as being?
did you not register Stephen Colbert's disembowelling White House Correspondents Dinner address of 2006?
the idea that corpomedia titans, mavens, hangers-on or wanna-bes (please feel free to pick wherever on that dimension you prefer to see yourself perching) can do any useful public service by presenting "one side says X, the other side says Y; we will make no declaration that we privately recognize the actual facts mean that one side is flat-out wrong, but will simply imply that "the truth is probably somewhere in-between" — well, this approach is now not only dead, it's stinking up the place.
that is the corpse this piece seeks to reanimate. it was a Bad Idea.
you, however, may not be a Bad Person.
I'll be happy to make a point of watching where you go from here.
* actually, my crusty English Public School Principal first tagged me with that very appellation in his Headmaster's Report on me, following a year of relentless argument in a General Studies class I was required to take from him in my Upper Sixth year. he no doubt hoped it would represent a substantial impediment in the event that a future employer sought my school references, hardly unusual in that part of the world back then. I however was nothing but delighted.
Now, as Tax-Paying Americans we have a right to know how our money is being spent and I believe our Government has an obligation to provide reasonable transparency in this matter. I don't expect them to provide us with blueprints for super-secret bombers or anything, but I do think that information about how we manipulated Spanish Justice in order to protect those who we are bound by Law and Treaty to investigate ourselves would certainly fall within this "right to know" Umbrella.
Following this crystal clear logic I would suggest that Mr. Assange be given The Presidential Medal of Freedom, or if a Foreign National isn't eligibly, some equally prestigious award.
I'd like to know why the "tea party and the rest of the Bush clones were not charged with Sedition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)
I guess the author is following the strategy of repeating lies until they become truth.
You missed the memo in which Libby never served a second in jail--George W commuted his sentence before he served a day for what Martha Stewart served several months for.
"on June 14, 2007, Judge Walton "ordered" Libby "to report to prison while his attorneys appeal his perjury and obstruction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby
Also, while WikiLeaks certainly has touched sensitive diplomatic nerves around the world, the intent of their release was not focused upon a contemporaneous risk to our nation's security as Cheney Leaks clearly was. The purpose of leaking Valerie Plame's name was to intimidate her husband from refuting Administration lies about the nuclear capabilities of Iraq, which was the area of special intelligence expertise Plame served our nation in following.
There is no question in my mind that WikiLeaks and CheneyLeaks are significantly different. CheneyLinks was committed by the second highest ranking American office holder, and with full knowledge of its being a treasonous act.
Julian Assange aside, someone(s) leaked the memos to WikiLeaks.
PFC Bradley Manning DID (it appears) release such information, and, as a result, he is in prison awaiting trial on charges that could possibly include treason. He'll certainly be charged with deliberately mishandling classified information. But for treason, you would have to prove that he levie[d] war against [the US] or adhere[d] to their enemies." He obviously did NOT levy war against the US. If he adhered to "their enemies", then who are the enemies to whom he adhered? Wikileaks defines its mission of openness, public awareness, etc without reference to the US, so I don't see any defined enemies. Frankly, I don't think the charge of treason will stick even to Manning.
In the Plame case, the charge of treason is again inapplicable. The key phrase in the US Code is "adheres to their enemies" NOT the modifying phrase, "giving them aid and comfort." Can anyone really say Armitage or even Libby, in his disgusting vendetta, much less Cheney were adhering to an enemy of the US. No, I vote against any treason charges in either case.