Comments on: Classification Laws Apply to Everyone, Judge Says http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_e.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:32:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Kenneth Graham http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_e.html/comment-page-1#comment-436 Kenneth Graham Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:56:41 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_everyone_judge_says.html#comment-436 "they haven't been taken all that seriously, at least up to now." And for good reason. The provision you cite is part of the Espionage Act mentioned in the original post. It does not make possession of classified information a crime and most classified information would not meet the statutory definitions even if the person intended to use the information to harm the US as the statute requires. “they haven’t been taken all that seriously, at least up to now.”
And for good reason.
The provision you cite is part of the Espionage Act mentioned in the original post. It does not make possession of classified information a crime and most classified information would not meet the statutory definitions even if the person intended to use the information to harm the US as the statute requires.

]]> By: Allen Thomson http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_e.html/comment-page-1#comment-435 Allen Thomson Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:32:47 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_everyone_judge_says.html#comment-435 > What "laws" does the judge have in mind? I suspect they were the ones that originated during WW I and are currently to be found in 18 USC 79x. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html These are really scary if you take them seriously. Thankfully, they haven't been taken all that seriously, at least up to now. > What “laws” does the judge have in mind?

I suspect they were the ones that originated during WW I and are currently to be found in 18 USC 79x.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793—-000-.html

These are really scary if you take them seriously. Thankfully, they haven’t been taken all that seriously, at least up to now.

]]> By: Kenneth Graham http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_e.html/comment-page-1#comment-434 Kenneth Graham Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:13:38 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_everyone_judge_says.html#comment-434 What "laws" does the judge have in mind? The last time I checked, Congress had not adopted an official secrets act making it illegal to possess classified information. Indeed, the whole classification system is a product of executive regulation that cannot criminalize conduct. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that one who takes classified information can be prosecuted for theft of government property but so far as I know, the Supreme Court has never approved that ruling. What “laws” does the judge have in mind? The last time I checked, Congress had not adopted an official secrets act making it illegal to possess classified information. Indeed, the whole classification system is a product of executive regulation that cannot criminalize conduct. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that one who takes classified information can be prosecuted for theft of government property but so far as I know, the Supreme Court has never approved that ruling.

]]> By: Allen Thomson http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_e.html/comment-page-1#comment-433 Allen Thomson Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:24:36 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/01/classification_laws_apply_to_everyone_judge_says.html#comment-433 While the judge's statement certainly provides a clue as to how he'd be inclined to rule in future cases of the sort, does it have any legal relevance beyond that? In fact, now that I think about it, doesn't his statement provide grounds for the defense in future secrecy cases to demand that he recuse himself? While the judge’s statement certainly provides a clue as to how he’d be inclined to rule in future cases of the sort, does it have any legal relevance beyond that?

In fact, now that I think about it, doesn’t his statement provide grounds for the defense in future secrecy cases to demand that he recuse himself?

]]>