Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DU Lawyers: Why is Motive Important?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Mike03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:27 PM
Original message
DU Lawyers: Why is Motive Important?
Edited on Mon Oct-31-05 06:28 PM by Mike03
I thought "ignorance is not a defense" where the commission of a crime is concerned. Please help me understand: If someone in this administration committed the crime of outing a classified, covert agent, why it matters if the offender knew or not that they were guilty of a felony at the time??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not a lawyer, but I think that is what the statute requires.
It is an element of the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Although I am not a practicing attorney,...
,...I can tell you that the vast majority of crimes are defined by statute. Many crimes require the element of "intent" (mens rea). For example, "fraud" requires an intention to deceive in order to manipulate someone into doing what they otherwise would not have done had they not been deceived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. Because the statute prohibiting revealing an agent's identity requires
knowledge that the agent was covert and the intent to reveal the agent's identity.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html
It doesn't matter whether they knew it was illegal (though I don't believe for a minute that people like Libby wouldn't know that), but they have to have leaked the information intentionally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Are you serious?
Do you have any idea how many non-common sense laws are on the books? There are some that are waaaay out there. I bet 90% of the population have committed a felony without intending to do so (and some with the intent to do so).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. both statements are urban myths
I'm a lawyer and did criminal defense for 10 years. Trust me, there are no criminal laws that are waaaay out there and 90% of us have not committed a felony without knowing...or without intent.

Just not so.

(I will admit that every so often a stupid law gets put on the books, usually dealing with drugs, but it is repealed within a year a two.)

Some cities may have stupid ordinances, you hear of towns doing things like outlawing the UN and other nonsense, but they are unenforcable and can only be minor infractions since cities and towns are not given the authority to make anything a "crime". That is for the state legislature or Congress.

This law does not make intent an essential element. It doesn't matter why she was outed, it only matters (because it is an essential element of the crime) that the leaker know she was CIA/undercover and intend to blow that cover. It is the law used for people like Hanssen and Ames and other spies who sell us out to our enemies. You would not want to punish the person who innocently, for instance, gave information to Ames or Hanssen not knowing Ames and Hanssen were "working for" the "other side".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Here's what I mean
A friend of mine recently found out that he may be committing a crime. He carries a gun with him wherever he goes. Before I knew about that, we were having a discussion about gun laws and I mentioned the "Gun Free School Zone" - no guns within 1000 feet of any schools. He happens to live within that limit. Now the law provides an out for keeping a gun IN YOUR HOME within that limit, but does not provide any protection once you leave your home with that gun. He frequently walks to the community mailbox with his gun on his hip (yes, this is Arizona), which is moving him even closer to the school. Did he know about that law before I mentioned it? No. Was he committing a crime by carrying? According to the law; yes. It certainly isn't a law one would know off the top of their head and how it fits into the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is beyond me, but that's another discussion.

Stuff like that is more common than you think.

Should he go to jail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. sure he should
you have to have a permit to carry a gun in Arizona, you must be approved for a permit by the law enforcement authorities in Arizona, so, provided your friend has a permit, the Gun Free School Zone Act does not "apply" to him.

If he doesn't have a permit and is on public property or on school grounds with a gun....yeah, he should go to "jail" (prison). For up to 5 years.

There is no Arizona law with the name "Gun Free School Zone" so I assume you are talking about the federal The Gun Free School Zone act. I find it hard to believe he's not heard of it. It's been in effect since 1990 and all the gun nut magazines talk about it all the time. It says, in part:

`(q)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

`(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm--

`(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

`(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. More info...
He does not have a concealed carry permit, and said he always carries his handgun openly in a holster on his hip. He's not on school grounds, but his home (and mailbox - it's a community mailbox down the street) is well within 1000 feet of an elementary school, and walking to his mailbox brings him CLOSER to the school, but not on school grounds.

This individual is very a-political. He's not a member of the NRA. He is one of those who does NOT care about politics so I don't find it unusual that he hasn't heard of many of the gun laws.

You really think he should go to jail?

Also, according to the letter of the law, how would individuals who live inside the 1000 foot boundary of this law be able to legally remove a gun from their home (like going to a shooting range)? The letter of the law doesn't make any allowances.

Now, to MY knowledge, this "Gun Free School Zone" act was passed in 1990 like you mentioned but found unconstitutional shortly thereafter (court said it had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause provision). I think it was in 92 or 94 when it was rewritten and passed again, and to my knowledge, the rewritten law hasn't ever been challenged in court, and if it ever were, it probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Neverthless, right now, it's the law.

Do you still think that my friend should go to jail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. so, since the law was overturned, then your friend is not in violation
of a stupid law and I no longer understand the intent of this exercize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. No, read my post again, carefully
...and you'll see that the law was rewritten and passed again. It essentially invalidates the 2nd Amendment for anyone who happens to live withing 1000 feet of a school. While those who live within this proximity to a school, it stipulates that they can posess a gun INSIDE their home, but not outside their home. Because of that, they can't transport it anywhere without breaking the law.

I am just using this as an example of some of the stupid laws on the books. It would be safe to assume that many people have broken this law. If he had to follow the law (whether he knew it or not), if he bought a new gun, he couldn't bring it home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. oh, sorry, I intended to challenge your assertion is was passed again
I can't find anything on it after it was struck down in 1995. A couple of states have legislation...but not Arizona.

Maybe you can find that name or cite to the law? It's not coming up under Gun Free School Zone.

I'm pretty sure there is no federal law as it was before our legislature a couple of years ago when a local University prohibited guns on campus and our red neck legislature went nuts threatening to cut off funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Here...
Gun Free School Zones Act—as reenacted

Originally enacted in 1990 (P.L. 101-647, Sec. 1702(b)(1))

Overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, April 26, 1995
Re: Federalism; Congress exceeded its authority under Commerce Clause.
(U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549)

Reenacted by Congress, Sep. 30, 1996 (P.L. 104-208)

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Nx1.htm



http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:37 PM
Original message
Thank you for the replies.
Much appreciated.

I still think they are lying through their teeth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. So does Fritz and the grand jury - thus the obstruction of justice charge.
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. See the statute
Edited on Mon Oct-31-05 06:38 PM by merh
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access


January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]


TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent

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 receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)


Short Title

For short title of this subchapter as the ``Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1982'', see section 1 of Pub. L. 97-200, set out as a
Short Title of 1982 Amendment note under section 401 of this title.

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 422, 424 of this title;
title 5 section 8312; title 8 section 1101; title 18 section 3239; title
22 section 2778.

----------

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access


January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]



TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 422. Defenses and exceptions

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent

It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is
charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the
intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the
disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is
the basis for the prosecution.

(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person
committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject
to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title
18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an
offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who
acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and
expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities
would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United
States, or (B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to
classified information.

(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence

It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to
transmit information described in such section directly to the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity

It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an
individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a
covert agent.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 602, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)

----------

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access


January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]



TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 424. Extraterritorial jurisdiction

There is jurisdiction over an offense under section 421 of this
title committed outside the United States if the individual committing
the offense is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted to the United States for permanent residence (as defined in
section 1101(a)(20) of title 8).

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 604, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 123.)

----------

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access


January 6, 1997 and May 14, 1998]



TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART III--EMPLOYEES

Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

SUBCHAPTER II--FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY

Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses

(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid
annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual
which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the
exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual--
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an
offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent
provided by that subsection; or
(2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of
an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent
provided by that subsection.

The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies--
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this
section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after
September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this
section, to the period after the date of conviction or after
September 26, 1961, whichever is later.

(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this
section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after
September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of--
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793
(gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794
(gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign
government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of
chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18;
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason),
2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy),
2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities
affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting
armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against
United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United
States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and
subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as
the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States
or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based.

(2) An offense within the purview of--
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or
article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article
104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is
based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on
the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation
of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this
subsection, if the executed sentence includes death,
dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the
defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally
approved.

(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or
the District of Columbia--
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which
constitutes an offense within the purview of--
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection;
or
(ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of
this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview
of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A)
of this subsection;

(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court
of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his
service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or
relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or
involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or
endanger, the national security or defense of the United States;
or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee
in connection with a matter under inquiry before the
congressional committee involving or relating to an interference
with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or
attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or
defense of the United States.

(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the
false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified
by paragraph (3) of this subsection.

(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this
section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after
September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of--
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273
(violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of
title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to
injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage
to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275
(receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted
data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of
classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to
intelligence identities).

(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an
earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case
may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a
violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this
subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable
discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies
before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or
the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act
which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named
by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the
false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of
this subsection.

(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense
within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney
General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the
annuity or retired pay concerned--
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been
convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a
foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the
provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or
would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within
the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or
that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with
procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable
to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such
conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible
in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of
this subsection.

(2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be
subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the
application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney,
alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs \1\ (A),
(B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have
not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the
court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in
such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to
which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order
that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to
be paid by the department or agency concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ So in original. Probably should be ``subparagraph''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 559; Pub. L. 92-128, Sec. 2(b),
Sept. 25, 1971, 85 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 99-569, title VI, Sec. 603, Oct.
27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3204; Pub. L. 103-337, div. A, title VI,
Sec. 639(a), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2791; Pub. L. 103-359, title VIII,
Sec. 805, Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3441.)

Historical and Revision Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Statutes and
Derivation U.S. Code Statutes at Large
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 U.S.C. 2282. Sept. 26, 1961, Pub.
L. 87-299, Sec. 1
``Sec. 1'', 75 Stat.
640.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable
and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

References in Text

Pars. (2), (3) and (4) of subsec. (b) of section 10 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect before August 30,
1954, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(D), are covered by sections 2274,
2275 and 2276, respectively, of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Subsecs. (a) and (b) of section 16 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, referred to in
subsec. (b)(1)(E), are covered by sections 2272 and 2273, respectively,
of Title 42.
Articles 104, 106, and 106a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), are sections 904, 906, and 906a,
respectively, of Title 10, Armed Forces. The Uniform Code of Military
Justice, in its entirety, is set out in section 801 et seq. of Title 10.
The date of enactment of this subsection, referred to in subsec.
(d)(1)(C), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103-359, which was
approved Oct. 14, 1994.

Amendments

1994--Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103-337 substituted ``, article 106
(spies), or article 106a (espionage)'' for ``or article 106 (spies)''.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103-359 added subsec. (d).
1986--Subsec. (c)(1)(C). Pub. L. 99-569 inserted provisions relating
to section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947.
1971--Subsec. (c)(1)(C). Pub. L. 92-128 struck out ``, 822
(conspiracy or evasion of apprehension during internal security
emergency), or 823 (aiding evasion or apprehension during internal
security emergency)'' after ``classified information)''.

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Section 639(b) of Pub. L. 103-337 provided that: ``The amendment
made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to
persons convicted of espionage under section 906a of title 10, United
States Code (article 106a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.''

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 5569, 8311, 8313, 8315,
8316, 8318, 8320 of this title; title 37 section 559.

----------

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access





14 June 1999
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html

See related: http://jya.com/cia-hide.htm

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)

----------

http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Man!
Your good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. lol
thanks. :blush:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jzodda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Motive is important
Because state of mind can be very important in many criminal cases. Some laws require little state of mind when they are broken, others require a specific state of mind, otherwise known as intent. In this case intent is written into the code so that sets the standard for breaking this particular law.

"Ignorance is no defense" is a very broad and general statement. Whats more important is what is written into the law. That plays the main role in bringing charges or not. The way this particular law is written it is very hard to prove-at least thats what the US attorney's office believes and I am in no position to disagree with them since I and the rest of us are not in possession of all the facts that they have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks
I can appreciate the idea that motive is 1) Interesting and 2) important in designating degrees of guilt--as in the difference between a serial killer murdering someone and a drunk driver or sober driver accidentally killing someone. It is interesting that there is this balance between the intent of the offender and the damage caused to the victim. In this instance, I simply find it so hard to believe that the publication of a covert agent's identity at that particular moment in time, in the context of the fraudulent build up to war, could possibly be an accident. It would be interesting to see what a jury would think about this matter--and I hope a jury does get the chance to evaluate it, at some point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Out of curiosity...
In a situation, for example, where a car is driving down the street going the speed limit (say, 45MPH) and two kids run into the street without any warning whatsoever and the driver hits them and they die, should the driver go to jail or be liable in any way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. Beyond reasonable doubt
Motive does not equal intent. Intent means you do something knowingly. Motive is the purpose for the intent. You can't prove a negative but showing a conspiracy to act on the motive can put it beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of many jurors.

I think establishing motive is most important to the investigator because it allows him to sharpen his focus. Good detectives will turn up lots of clues, many that send them down blind alleys. Figuring out the reason behind the intent will allow them to chase after the right clues and ask the right questions.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-05 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. You have you legal terms a little mixed up
Motive is actually irrelevant to criminal prosecutions, since it is not an element of the crime. Intent, on the other hand, is. In non-legal language, motive is the reason why someone did something, intent is simply that they meant to commit the act they did. Most of the time a jury wants to know why someone committed that murder, but it is not actually essential to a successful prosecution.

Intent is required (meaning in this case that they knew the agent was covert and wanted to disclose her identitity), but their motive for doing so (because they're partisan jerks who put the interests of the republican party ahead of all else) is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeRQ4U Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. Best response yet. Very well explained.
Intent is a required element when included in the offense. Motive is circumstantial evidence used to prove the other elements of the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
18. Here's some info on how a prosecutor would prosecute a
violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And incidentally, it's from In re: Grand Jury Subpoena of Judith Miller, et al. The federal appeals court said:

"Most criminal acts do not pose the statutory questions raised in this case. For crimes such as assault, murder, or robbery, the only unanswered question usually is: Who did it? Some conduct is criminal only if it is furthered by the specific intent and/or knowledge of the perpetrator, such as fraud or income tax evasion. The statute that forms the basis of this investigation requires evidentiary proof far beyond even a specific intent crime: it requires the government to have met certain criteria.

To prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-200, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. (96 Stat. 122) 145 (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 421-426 ) (the “Act) (Tab A), the government must establish the following elements:

The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States;


The covert agent whose identity was disclosed is an employee of an intelligence agency;


The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such agency that is classified;


At the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of the disclosure;


The person disclosing the identity of that covert agent must be authorized, directly or indirectly, to have access to classified information that identifies the covert agent;


The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;


The person disclosing the identity knows that the information so identifies the covert agent;


The disclosure is intentional; and


The identity is disclosed to a person not having authorization to receive such information.5


As a further hurdle to any prosecution, the statute provides for a defense where, prior to disclosure, the “United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship” of the covert agent. 50 U.S.C. § 422(a); S. Rep. 97-201, at 23 (1981), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 145, 167."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC