Actually there is a hodgepodge of laws that governs unauthorized disclosures. They are:18 U.S.C. § 793: A person who unlawfully possesses or has access to “information respect the national defense,” and who discloses that information in some unauthorized manner may be imprisoned up to ten years and/or fined up to $250,000. This statute applies only when the official disclosing the unauthorized information “has reason to believe” the disclosed information “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign country.”S.C. § 798: Governs only information pertaining to communications intelligence §systems and activities of the U.S. Any person who knowingly and willfully discloses any such unauthorized information may, upon conviction, be sentenced to forfeit to the government: 1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and 2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission, of such violati

The Times points out that Lawrence Franklin recently pleaded guilty to Espionage Act charges related to his disclosure of classified information to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and that two former employees of AIPAC face Espionage Act charges for relaying information from Franklin to the Israeli government. Disclosure of Ms. Plame’s classified status could well fall within the prohibitions of the Espionage Act, specifically those in 18 U.S.C. section 793(e), which prohibit disclosure of information relating to the national defense by persons who have such information without authorization. Finally, there is precedent for prosecuting disclosure of classified information to the press under the Espionage Act.

ew or should have known about the diversion. If a U.S. entity were involved in the pager incident and knew that their distributor was sending the goods to be used by Hezbollah members, they would have potential exposure to civil and criminal liability under U.S. export laws and sanctions regulations.Foreign Agent ActivityThe involvement of a foreign government in supply chain activity presents potential issues under other U.S. national security laws. If a foreign government or its intelligence agency directed a U.S. entity to provide access to items in their supply chain to engage in an intelligence operation, there is potential exposure under foreign agent laws like 18 U.S.C. § 951 (prohibiting acting at the direction of a foreign government without notice to the Attorney General). If the request related to classified or highly sensitive government information, such as might be the case with a cleared defense contractor, there might even be risk of liability under espionage laws like 18 U.S.C. § 793 (prohibiting the dissemination of national defense information).What Companies Should Be Thinking AboutThere are a number of essential compliance and due diligence areas that companies can focus on to avoid supply chain issues like those described above.First, companies need to take reasonable measures to know both their suppliers and their customers. Regarding suppliers, companies should take a hard look at their due diligence process and ensure it covers any supply chain risks. For example, relating to cybersecurity risk, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) outlines supply chain cybersecurity best practices, highlighting that companies should (a) ensure security requirements are included in every request for proposal; (b) ensure that a security team works with the vendor on-site to address any vulnerabilities and security gaps; and (c) include tack and trace programs to establish the provenance of all parts, components and systems. Additionally, businesses shou

The Fifth Circuit rejected the government's argument that the gun facilitated the other offense. It remanded for resentencing, because the judge had to find that the defendant transferred the gun "with knowledge or intent" that it would be used to commit another offense. US v. Johnston, No. 08-10120 (5th Cir. 2/10/09)In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit had to decide which of two guidelines applied to the defendant's offense of illegally retaining classified national defense documents in violation of 18 USC 793(e). The trial court picked USSG 2M3.2, the option with the higher offense level that applies when the defendant knew or should have known the documents could be used to threaten national security or aid a foreign power.