The continued classification of the information is how the government usually proves that it meets both of these requirements. These judicially imposed limitations on the term have saved it from vagueness challenges. Rosen (citing Gorin ), “ the statute only applies to information for which there is an ‘occasion for secrecy,’ and there is no ‘occasion for secrecy’ unless disclosure of the information the government seeks to protect implicates an important government interest such as the national security.” Therefore, under case law, information relating to national defense must be information that is both closely held and potentially damaging to the United States or useful to an enemy of the United States if disclosed. As Judge Ellis stated in United States v. In addition, the same cases have also interpreted the secrecy requirement from Gorin and Heine to mean that disclosure of the information at issue must be potentially damaging to the United States or useful to an enemy of the United States. (Since the classification system currently in place had yet to be invented at the time of these cases, this wasn’t meant to refer to information formally classified as “secret.”) Later cases-see here and here, for example-have interpreted this “secrecy” aspect to require that the information be “closely held,” a phrase frequently used in jury instructions for cases involving 18 U.S.C. Heine -“information relating to the national defense” is a broad term encompassing activities relating to national preparedness, but it must also be information for which the government has taken some steps to keep it secret. United States, and the other a Second Circuit opinion by Judge Learned Hand, United States v. But according to two consequential cases that interpreted the phrase “information relating to the national defense” in the Espionage Act-one a Supreme Court opinion, Gorin v.
It’s true that the statute refers to “information relating to the national defense,” not classified information. Let’s start with the relevance of classification to 18 U.S.C. In addition, that same New York Times article described the classification status as “legally irrelevant,” which is not quite accurate, at least when it comes to the inclusion of 18 U.S.C. ” A recent New York Times article attempted to explain the parameters of a president’s declassification authority, but the explanation and the news coverage of that issue to date gloss over important nuances worth analyzing further. Several experts have pointed out the absurdity of such a claim, describing it as “ preposterous ,” “ idiotic and dumb ,” and “ utter baloney.
Former president Trump claims he had a standing order to declassify documents as soon as they left the oval office.
In the wake of the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, two issues that have received attention are the scope of a president’s declassification authority and the relevance of the classification of the documents recovered in the search.
0 kommentar(er)
