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.

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.