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:
Quote:Secrets of the Scandal
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 11, 2003
Like any good spy story, the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson is far more complex than it seems on the surface.
I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her C.I.A. career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47," as a classmates at the C.I.A. training "farm," Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more careful around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing hand grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence community.)
Those operations remain secret, but there are several crucial facts that can be made public without putting anyone at risk ?- and together, they leave everybody looking bad. The C.I.A. is now conducting a damage assessment, which will determine what networks and operations it will have to close down. But my sense is that Democrats exaggerate the damage to Mrs. Wilson's career and to her personal security, while Republicans vastly play down the enormity of the security breach and the danger to the assets she worked with.
And now a few pertinent facts:
First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.
Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" ?- which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.
Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the C.I.A. and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret. Even her classmates in the C.I.A.'s career training program mostly knew her only as Valerie P. That way, if one spook defected, the damage would be limited.
All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put Mrs. Wilson's life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over.
Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to investigate the White House. Hillary Rodham Clinton knows better than anyone how destructive and distracting a special counsel investigation can be, interfering with the basic task of governing, and it's sad to see her display the same pusillanimous partisanship that Republicans showed just a few years ago.
If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it, Republicans have inexcusably tried to whitewash it. The leak risked the security of all operatives who had used Brewster-Jennings as cover, as well as of all assets ever seen with Mrs. Wilson. Unwitting sources will now realize that they were supplying the C.I.A. with information, and even real agents may fear exposure and vanish.
C.I.A. veterans are seething, and rightly so, at the betrayal by their own government. Larry Johnson, who entered the agency at the same time as Mrs. Wilson, is a Republican who voted for President Bush ?- and he's so enraged that he compares the administration leaker to the spies Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen.
"Here's a woman who put her life on the line," Mr. Johnson said. "But unlike a Navy seal or a marine, she didn't have a gun to fight back. All she had to protect her was her cover."
We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of American C.I.A. officers, but we never publish their names. I find Mr. Novak's decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration officials to leak it.
This scandal leaves everybody stinking.
)
