kelticwizard wrote:Okay. After reading Kuvasz' exhaustive analysis
here, I am going to disagree with Kuvasz and actually agree with Tico
on one point only.
There is no legal ruling, yet, that Valerie Wilson was in fact a covert agent. Not yet.
There have only been rulings that reporters can be compelled to testify at a Grand Jury investigation because the investigator, Fitzgerald, has demonstrated that there is a good chance that the crime of revealing the identity of a covert agent has been committed.
I think the issue revolves around the following statement from the Appellate Court.
Appellate Court wrote:On the record before us, there is at
least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one
or both journalists received information concerning the identity
of a covert operative of the United States from government
employees acting in violation of the law by making the
disclosure.
The Appellate Court is not categorically saying that Valerie Wilson was a covert operative for sure, and there is sufficient evidence to proceed with an inquiry as to whether or not her identity was revealed illegally.
What the Appellate Court is saying is that there is enough evidence to proceed with an inquiry into the question of whether or not the crime of revealing illegally the identity of a covert agent has been committed.
There is nothing in the ruling which says that anybody charged with this crime, (if they are), is not free to argue that the crime has not been committed because the prosecutor cannot show that Valerie Wilson was actually covert in the first place.
The Appellate Division has only ruled, in my opinion, that Fitzgerald has presented enough evidence that Valerie Wilson was covert for the inquiry to go forward.
Are you guys living in the world of Null-A?
In response to Justice Department inquiries, viz., Fitzgerald's, CIA lawyers answered 11 questions, affirming that Plame's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so, and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak. All together grounds for a criminal investigation.
The leak of the name is a violation of two laws that bar revealing the identities of covert operatives: the National Agents' Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act.
Have they stopped teaching Aristoletian logic in the universities?
Aristotelian logic is two-fold: (X) is either equal to (A) or (not A).
Plame's status (X) was either equal to (A) covert, or equal to (not A), not covert.
The courts rejected the merits of the claims made in the amicus brief that she was not covert. They rejected the claims that Plame's status (X) was equal to (not A).
What remains of the Court's rejection of the claim of (not A) is the fundamental assertion of (X) is equal to (A), that she was covert.
Or are you guys claiming that Aristole was wrong?
Or of course, maybe American jurisprudence has suddenly resorted to the application of the seven-valued logic of the Jains, called the Sapta-bhangi: a thing may be
Syat asti; a thing may not be
Syat nasti; a thing may or may not be
Syat asti nasti; a thing may be inexpressible or indescribable
Syat avaktavyah; maybe it is and is inexpressible
Syat nasti ca avaktavyah; maybe it is, is not, and is inexpressible
Syat asti ca nasti ca avaktavyah.
In that case, good luck in a court room.
The argument is being made that the federal courts have not spoken about the status of Plame's status as a covert agent. However, in the amicus brief before Hogan and the Apppellate Court review of Judge Hogan's decision, a claim was made that she was not covert at the time she was outed.
The Appellate Court did rule on this claim in reference to the claims outlined in the amicus brief. It ruled
Quote:"We further conclude that other assignments of error raised by appellants are without merit. We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court."
Those "assignments of errors" included that Plame was not covert.
THE SYLLOGISM IS WRITTEN THUSLY:
1. (A) IS NOT = TO (NOT A).
COVERT IS NOT = TO NOT COVERT.
2. (X) IS = TO (A), OR = TO (NOT A), BUT CAN NOT, BY THE FIRST STATEMENT ABOVE, BE EQUAL TO BOTH.
HER STATUS WAS EQUAL TO COVERT OR EQUAL TO NOT COVERT.
3. THE COURT REJECTED ("AS WITHOUT MERIT") THE CLAIM OF THE AMICUS BRIEF THAT
(X) IS EQUAL TO (NOT A),
4. IPSO FACTO, (X) IS EQUAL TO (A),
viz.., Plame was a covert agent
If the amicus brief claims that Plame was not covert, and the Court concludes that such a claim is without merit, what else is the court saying but that Plame was covert?
It rejects the thesis that Plame was not covert. What remains, by analog logic can only be the affirmation of the antithesis, viz., the conclusion by the Court that she was covert.
If your claim to a court is the thesis that you are a jelly donut, and the court rejects that claim as "without merit", it is affirming the anthesis, viz., that you are not a jelly donut.
The court does not have to say directly that you are not a jelly donut, all it has to do is affirm that your claim is without merit to say so.
That is exactly what the Court did, sans pastry.
