C.I.A. Didn’t Violate (Valerie Plame Wilson's Free Speech) Rights, Court Says
Edited on Fri Nov-13-09 12:39 PM by sabra
Source: NY Times
The Central Intelligence Agency did not violate the free speech rights of a former operative, Valerie Wilson, when it prohibited publication of details of her work before 2002 for the agency, a federal appeals court ruled. Ms. Wilson, left, whose classified status was exposed by Bush administration officials, redacted portions of her 2007 book, “Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House” because of the ban, but argued that the information was already in the public domain and publication should have been permitted. The opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, stated that “When Ms. Wilson elected to serve with the C.I.A., she accepted a life-long restriction on her ability to disclose classified and classifiable information.” Others may have disclosed it, and “may well have warranted investigation” for their disclosures, but “these circumstances do not absolve Ms. Wilson of her own secrecy obligations.” David B. Smallman, a lawyer for Ms. Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, said that an appeal was under consideration. LinkHere
Source: NY Times
The Central Intelligence Agency did not violate the free speech rights of a former operative, Valerie Wilson, when it prohibited publication of details of her work before 2002 for the agency, a federal appeals court ruled. Ms. Wilson, left, whose classified status was exposed by Bush administration officials, redacted portions of her 2007 book, “Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House” because of the ban, but argued that the information was already in the public domain and publication should have been permitted. The opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, stated that “When Ms. Wilson elected to serve with the C.I.A., she accepted a life-long restriction on her ability to disclose classified and classifiable information.” Others may have disclosed it, and “may well have warranted investigation” for their disclosures, but “these circumstances do not absolve Ms. Wilson of her own secrecy obligations.” David B. Smallman, a lawyer for Ms. Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, said that an appeal was under consideration. LinkHere
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home