Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sez you. I thought then, as I do now, that Georgeob1 adequately rebutted your rebuttal.

You really haven't learned anything in those three years.

But if you really think that breaching the cease-fire (in 1999 or so) was sufficient justification for launching a preemptive invasion in 2003, then surely you can identify the document or international agreement that permitted the US to enforce that cease-fire on its own.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... but no, I haven't learned nothing since.

That has been abundantly clear from your postings, Bill.

High Seas wrote:

You may also recall that Ms. Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and NOC service was admitted by the (since reformed) old Sovs to have been delivered to them (i.e. to their blood-brothers in Tel Aviv as well) by Aldrich Ames. There can be no question of any blown covers on that one.

What???

No need for that, burden-shifter. You are among those apparently claiming a crime has been committed. Why don't you provide the statutory proof that the U.S. didn't have the authority to enforce that ceasefire... and while you're at it; please provide the statute they violated and describe how they fulfilled the necessary requirements to be found guilty... and then let us all know when this was ruled upon.

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:

You may also recall that Ms. Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and NOC service was admitted by the (since reformed) old Sovs to have been delivered to them (i.e. to their blood-brothers in Tel Aviv as well) by Aldrich Ames. There can be no question of any blown covers on that one.

What???

She said:

"You may also recall that Ms. Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and NOC service was admitted by the (since reformed) old Sovs to have been delivered to them (i.e. to their blood-brothers in Tel Aviv as well) by Aldrich Ames. There can be no question of any blown covers on that one."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

No need for that, burden-shifter. You are among those apparently claiming a crime has been committed. Why don't you provide the statutory proof that the U.S. didn't have the authority to enforce that ceasefire... and while you're at it; please provide the statute they violated and describe how they fulfilled the necessary requirements to be found guilty... and then let us all know when this was ruled upon.

This is a joke, right? You claim that the US was justified in launching a preemptive attack on Iraq, but you can't come up with any support for your position.

And then you accuse me of burden shifting when I ask you to substantiate your claim?

Really, I would expect that from flaja or McGentrix some other conservative bobblehead, but not from you, O'Bill. If you have no support for your position except for your own misinformed bloviations, then just say so. Don't put the burden on me to show you why any purported violations of the cease-fire did not provide sufficient justification for the 2003 invasion.

So, because the violations of the no-fly zone rules did not justify the disproportionate, late response of an invasion, it is little wonder that no one in the Bush administration has seriously put forward those violations as providing a "justification" for the war. Indeed, it is only the administration's apologists, eager to find something that might explain why the US went to war, who advance this feeble argument.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

No. I responded to nonsense about it being a crime. I'll continue to consider that nonsense, until someone proves it was a crime.

Hardly. The burden hasn't left you since you chimed in with the it's a crime peeps.

As proof you enter into evidence your own opinion from 2005? After accusing me of relying on my own bloviations? Really Joe, that's rich. I would expect that from, well, you. The problem is; you were wrong then too.

For instance:

joefromchicago wrote:

So, because the violations of the no-fly zone rules did not justify the disproportionate, late response of an invasion, it is little wonder that no one in the Bush administration has seriously put forward those violations as providing a "justification" for the war. Indeed, it is only the administration's apologists, eager to find something that might explain why the US went to war, who advance this feeble argument.

Really?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq wrote:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Meanwhile: "The Vienna Convention states that a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty."

So it would appear that Sadam's Iraq satisfied the treaty requirements for a major response back in 1990...

...and since that action was suspended hadn't spent a day not in Material Breach of the negotiated ceasefire. This option was acted on once by in 1998 and then again in 2003. There can be no doubt that both times; Sadam's Iraq was indeed in material breach of the ceasefire. No crime here.

Joe - what you call a "joke" ref Ames was confirmed in congressional committee (intelligence) hearings.

High Seas wrote:

Joe - what you call a "joke" ref Ames was confirmed in congressional committee (intelligence) hearings.

I didn't call it a "joke," I just expressed some dismay over your statement. Even if Plame's identity as a covert agent had been exposed to a foreign government by a spy, that doesn't mean that she was fair game for everyone else. Under the relevant statute (50 USC sec. 421), it is only a defense if the US government identifies the agent, or if the agent identifies herself. One cannot claim to be immune from prosecution because a spy revealed the agent's identity to another nation.

Agreed with your entire above statement, but wonder on what grounds the judge threw out her claim against VP Cheney - do you happen to know?

One cannot claim to be immune from prosecution because a spy revealed the agent's identity to another nation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

For instance:

joefromchicago wrote:

So, because the violations of the no-fly zone rules did not justify the disproportionate, late response of an invasion, it is little wonder that no one in the Bush administration has seriously put forward those violations as providing a "justification" for the war. Indeed, it is only the administration's apologists, eager to find something that might explain why the US went to war, who advance this feeble argument.

Really?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq wrote:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

That's just one of the 23 "whereases" from the congressional joint resolution on the use of force in Iraq, and certainly not the most important.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Meanwhile: "The Vienna Convention states that a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty."

Which Vienna Convention?

And what multilateral treaty are you referring to?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So it would appear that Sadam's Iraq satisfied the treaty requirements for a major response back in 1990...

That doesn't make any sense. The ceasefire was in 1991.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

...and since that action was suspended hadn't spent a day not in Material Breach of the negotiated ceasefire. This option was acted on once by in 1998 and then again in 2003. There can be no doubt that both times; Sadam's Iraq was indeed in material breach of the ceasefire. No crime here.

What ceasefire? You mean the ceasefire contained in UN Security Council Resolution 687?

Where in that resolution does it say that the United States can, on its own, enforce that resolution?

joefromchicago wrote:
And then you accuse me of burden shifting when I ask you to substantiate your claim?

OBIll wrote:
Hardly. The burden hasn't left you since you chimed in with the it's a crime peeps.

There are international laws that makes it a crime to attack a sovereign nation that pose no threat to them.

The no fly zones established by the US in Iraq has no legal precedence that I'm aware of. Iraq has the legal right to defend itself from occupiers of their land.

I also think there are international laws against "leadership change."

I believe these are facts according to UN and Geneva conventions.

joefromchicago wrote:

One cannot claim to be immune from prosecution because a spy revealed the agent's identity to another nation.

Prosecution for what, Joe?