parados wrote:The question is only unanswered in your absolute world. It is very easy to see that the CIA, the DoJ and the prosecuter had to answer that question before they could even proceed. It might not stand up eventually but as for now it has been answered well enough to proceed.
In order to convince yourself of this, you have concluded that because the CIA has forwarded the matter to the DOJ, a crime must have been committed. That is not the standard. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but many charges are brought to prosecutors by law enforcement when there is not even evidence to show a crime was committed, and certainly not sufficient evidence to prove a case against the defendant. These cases often don't get charged, but sometimes do, and following the indictment, are weeded out at the preliminary hearing. Occasionally these cases make it to trial. Your statement that the question "has been answered" demonstrates a naivete one should not be proud to exhibit.
Quote:Perhaps you should pause and look at the facts as we know them. The CIA determined that Plame was covert before forwarding the information to DoJ. WIthout that determination there would be no basis for them to claim they talked to the DoJ about the criminal outing of a covert agent.
You disagree with your friend Cyclops on this point, you realize.
Quote:You ARE arguing when you refuse to address answers to your question. You pass them off as not good enough.
As I've said, the only argument I've made is arguing with you, and your ilk, about whether the case has been made that Plame is a "covert agent." I'm not arguing that she is or isn't, just that the case hasn't been made, and no evidence has been presented to substantiate that she is.
Quote: You bring up statements by people that would NOT have a clue as evidence that the question needs to be asked.
Did you think that sentence made a lot of sense when you wrote it?
parados wrote:Tico wrote:parados wrote:There is a difference between an INFORMED decision like the CIA did and an UNINFORMED question like you are proposing. What evidence do you have of the CIA bringing Plame back because her identity was revealed? It looks like you don't have any other than a statement by a RW pundit that doesn't have access to classified information. The overwhelming information from those that SHOULD know all lead to the same conclusion.
The only "evidence" I have is a report that she was brought back in 1997 because of Ames. I do not claim that it is accurate, I merely throw it out there. I take my Kristoff with a grain of salt. But do you have any evidence to suggest it is inaccurate, or are you simply discounting it. Don't you think that the CIA would keep that sort of information classified -- you know, along with the info on whether Plame has served abroad in the 5 years leading up to the leak?
What report? You provided NO SOURCE. I provide CIA letterhead that discussed the contacts with DoJ concerning the release of a name of an undercover agent. It's not much of a leap to go from contacts by the CIA with DoJ about the possible criminal release of a name of an undercover agent to get to the point that they CHECKED to see if she was covered. It would be REQUIRED that they checked otherwise they couldn't meet the standard to make it criminal.
I told you I only had that article written by Nicholas Kristof. Do you know what info Kristof has available to him? What makes you so sure he doesn't have access to classified info?
Your CIA letter is evidence of the CIA satisfying their legal obligation to forward a case to the Dept. of Justice when they suspect a possible violation of the law. They think the release of undercover operative Plame is, or ought to be, a violation of the law. You don't know the extent of any internal debate at the CIA concerning the legal implications surrounding this event. You don't know whether the CIA has decided that rather than make the legal determination regarding whether a crime has been violated -- a crime that has only been prosecuted one other time so there is a dearth of case law as precedent -- rather than making that decision at the agency level, and because they feel that any leak of an undercover operative is a serious -- and criminal -- matter, they forwarded the matter to the DOJ for their determination. Perhaps they were upset at the fact that this information was disclosed, and wanted to have the matter pushed as far as possible, and not forwarding the matter to the DOJ would not accomplish that goal. Makes much more sense to forward the matter to the DOJ for
possible violation of law. Draw some attention to the matter ... possibly get the law modified and improved, providing better protection to "undercover operatives." Perhaps they think some other law was
possibly violated. You are making a big assumption in your thinking. You seem fairly intelligent. I have no idea why you are incapable of acknowledging this point.
Here is Kristof's column:
)
