Quote:tico: One thing is clear -- you are lock-step with the rest of the looney left on this issue: "The vast right wing conspiracy machine is out the get McClellan, just like it went after O'Neill, and many before him."
blatham: At this point you can list all the people who have worked in this administration who have left and who have then gone on to make public statements which criticized the administration or its policies who then escaped broad and sustained attacks from the right. Begin now. I'll wait up to see your list.
tico: Sounds like a job for the looney left. I'm sure you got a link somewhere in your bookmarks/favorites.
No, it's your job or would be if you wanted at this point to display your own intellectual integrity and demonstrate the 'looniness' of my claim. But you possibly comprehend that there is no such list to be made because none who've worked high in this administration, then left, then criticized it have escaped sustained attacks from the right. You will not be able to name even one because this is an utterly predictable outcome. So here's your challenge, if you have the balls to accept it. Name one case which disproves my thesis.
Quote:But as you said, they are forces in my polity. Why do you let them get your panties in a wad? And why do you post them here, as if anyone cares what they have to say?
Answer: because you feel threatened by the both of them.
Personally, no. There's no reason why I'd have that response. I suspect you don't feel personally threatened by the white supremicist movement in washington state. You probably wouldn't feel personally threatened even if they had regular TV and radio exposure and a large audience. But you'd despise them and the effects they would have on your polity.
blatham wrote:Quote:tico: One thing is clear -- you are lock-step with the rest of the looney left on this issue: "The vast right wing conspiracy machine is out the get McClellan, just like it went after O'Neill, and many before him."
blatham: At this point you can list all the people who have worked in this administration who have left and who have then gone on to make public statements which criticized the administration or its policies who then escaped broad and sustained attacks from the right. Begin now. I'll wait up to see your list.
tico: Sounds like a job for the looney left. I'm sure you got a link somewhere in your bookmarks/favorites.
No, it's your job or would be if you wanted at this point to display your own intellectual integrity and demonstrate the 'looniness' of my claim. But you possibly comprehend that there is no such list to be made because none who've worked high in this administration, then left, then criticized it have escaped sustained attacks from the right. You will not be able to name even one because this is an utterly predictable outcome. So here's your challenge, if you have the balls to accept it. Name one case which disproves my thesis.
No, it's not my job; it's the job of the loony left. It's not a question of whether I have the balls, it's a question of whether I have the time or the inclination. I have neither.
Quote:Quote:But as you said, they are forces in my polity. Why do you let them get your panties in a wad? And why do you post them here, as if anyone cares what they have to say?
Answer: because you feel threatened by the both of them.
Personally, no. There's no reason why I'd have that response. I suspect you don't feel personally threatened by the white supremicist movement in washington state. You probably wouldn't feel personally threatened even if they had regular TV and radio exposure and a large audience. But you'd despise them and the effects they would have on your polity.
Okay. There's a kook in Kansas named Fred Phelps, affiliated with the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. You could also say I despise him. Yet I don't feel the need to fixate on him. He's an insignificant gnat, worthy of my scorn and derision, but little of my energy beyond that.
It seems juvenile to continue on in this manner. Let me give you a heads-up.
It is going to be the case that, as in Britain and Australia, your party and the movement behind it are going to be badly devastated in a year. Though not certain, it is likely Hillary will be your and Billo's and Ann's commander in chief. At which point, neither of the two of those people will demonstrate consistency or principle as regards their earlier claims on the duties of citizens to stand loyally behind the C in C.
If you don't fathom that their response will be precisely what I've just predicted, then you are much stupider than I take you to be. If you find justification for that response by the two of them, then that would make you equally unprincipled.
The heads-up is that in 12 or 16 months you will have a wonderful opportunity to see yourself and to decide whether you want to go forward with integrity or not.
Tico, is it your view that the IIAA is the only way to go after someone who gave up the ID of a CIA secret agent?
BTW, today's news covers an American muslim who is facing prosecution for giving, or plotting to give, information on the movement of Navy ships. The action is certainly not taken under the IIAA.
I believe that it was CI who mentioned that he was warned once that giving info in connection with his then occupation was a federal crime.
Advocate, In the late fifties, I worked with nukes in the US Air Force. On our very first day of training, we were warned that talking about our jobs outside of the secured area had a penalty of $10,000 and 10 years in jail.
We received a TOP SECRET security clearance to work on nukes.
Advocate wrote:Tico, is it your view that the IIAA is the only way to go after someone who gave up the ID of a CIA secret agent?
BTW, today's news covers an American muslim who is facing prosecution for giving, or plotting to give, information on the movement of Navy ships. The action is certainly not taken under the IIAA.
I believe that it was CI who mentioned that he was warned once that giving info in connection with his then occupation was a federal crime.
I've certainly never maintained it was the only means.
Leaking the Name of a CIA Agent Is a Crime
On July 22, Ambassador Wilson appeared on the Today show. Katie Couric asked him about his wife: "How damaging would this be to your wife's work?"
Wilson - who, not surprisingly, has refused to confirm or deny that his wife was a CIA operative - answered Katie "hypothetically." He explained, "it would be damaging not just to her career, since she's been married to me, but since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career. So it would be her entire network that she may have established, any operations, any programs or projects she was working on. It's a--it's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law."
And, indeed, it is.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply. Given the scant facts, it is difficult to know which might be more applicable. But as Senator Schumer (D.NY) said, in calling for an FBI investigation, if the reported facts are true, there has been a crime. The only question is: Whodunit?
The Espionage Act of 1917
The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.
In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.
Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?
The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.
The Espionage Act, though thrice amended since then, continues to criminalize leaks of classified information, regardless of the reason for the leak. Accordingly, the "two senior administration officials" who leaked the classified information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak (and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime.
--A John Dean piece in Findlaw.com
But it actually appears to not be a crime. That's what you and Dean, and most leftists who salivate at the possibility to indict a member of the Bush Administration, are not comprehending. If there is a desire that this be a crime in the US, the law needs to be modified.
And I rather figured you cite Dean to make your argument for you.
Ticomaya wrote:But it actually appears to not be a crime. That's what you and Dean, and most leftists who salivate at the possibility to indict a member of the Bush Administration, are not comprehending. If there is a desire that this be a crime in the US, the law needs to be modified.
And I rather figured you cite Dean to make your argument for you.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa8.html
This excerpt is from a scientific site, though the authors of this particular article are legal experts. They seem to agree with Tico on the 1917 law, on which Dean's argument is based.
That infornmation doesn't seem to be corrrect; I remember a couple who shared nuclear weapons informnation with another country suffered the death penalty. I believe their names were the Rosenbergs.
Prosecuting the press is different from prosecuting a person who leaked to the press. The former has protection under the first amendment, while the latter doesn't.
Here is a strong piece saying that the outing of Plame was treason. It also provides a list of impeachable offenses by the Bush/Cheney duo.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2938/81/
WH blocking Fitzgerald cooperation in Plame probe.House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) today wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and urged him to allow Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to cooperate with the committee's investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity. From his letter:
As the recent disclosure from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan underscores, there remain many unanswered questions surrounding this incident and the involvement of the President, the Vice President, and other senior White House officials in the security breach and the White House response.
The Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been cooperating with the Committee's investigation. Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee. [
]
I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay.
cicerone imposter wrote:That infornmation doesn't seem to be corrrect; I remember a couple who shared nuclear weapons informnation with another country suffered the death penalty. I believe their names were the Rosenbergs.
Cicerone - you amaze me if you're suggesting that this particular group >
Quote:Commission on Government Security, Report of the Commission on Government Security (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957), 3-6; Eleanor Bontecou, The Federal Loyalty-Security Program (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1953)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa8.html
> listed as a source for the legal analysis cited on the previous page had not heard of the Rosenbergs - specially since the judge who condemned them to death 3 years before this group first met was an advisor to it. How do you account for the fact that they forgot all about it?
High Seas, That's an awfully long article. Can you summarize it for us?
cicerone imposter wrote:High Seas, That's an awfully long article. Can you summarize it for us?
Cicerone - so you decided the authors were mistaken before even reading them?!
Where did you get the idea I presumed the authors to be incorrect? Show me?
cicerone imposter wrote:That infornmation doesn't seem to be corrrect;........... I believe their names were the Rosenbergs.
........re-posting from the top of this page.......
"...doesn't seem to be correct..." leaves it as a question. Comprende?
