Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Ticomaya wrote: Evidently it was enough to persuade you, but let's face it ... Advocate could post an article that says Bush may actually be the Son of Sam, and you'd be quick to add it to the list of his transgressions.


That's the beauty of a2k; we can repeat shite to our heart's content - until it dents some people's skull - and that's highly improbable. Even when all the evidence is out there for people to suffer from under Bush.

Then lets apply the same "logic" this way.

A member of Hillary's campaign staff was arrested for drunk driving, therefore Hillary was arrested for drunk driving.

Anyone wanting to see the mug shot, can go here:

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/14/hillary-clinton-adviser-faces-arraignment-after-arrest-on-dwi-charge/

He was going in the wrong direction, and admitted he was lost. Lost in more ways than one.

Interesting piece!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece

The pro-Bush supporters will continue to claim Plame was not undercover. Sad, but true; they'll continue to lie to themselves to live the rest of their lives to support a monster who was once our president.

CI, well said!

Plame considers her outing as treason perpatrated by the Bush White House.


From undercover to spotlight
Ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson calls her outing an act of treason and tells how her life was upended.
By Amber Mobley, Times Staff Writer
Published February 13, 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMPA - Valerie Plame Wilson imagined herself having a lifelong career in the CIA.

But now, her covert identity revealed, she's out of the agency, back from overseas, and living in New Mexico, adjusting to life as a political celebrity.

"If none of this would've happened, I would be working overseas, living with my family," she told a crowd of hundreds Tuesday night at the University of South Florida. "I went from being a very private person to being this very public persona."

But, she said, her is experience is a "mere inconvenience compared to that of the families of those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Calling herself a victim of treason by the Bush administration, Wilson urged her listeners to get active and change the environment in Washington in the coming election. "This democracy is only as strong as our citizens are willing to make it," she said.

She and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, have endorsed and campaigned for Hillary Rodham Clinton, a fact she reiterated during the speech. Comparing her experience to Democratic rival Barack Obama's, she said it was a matter of "chess vs. checkers."

Her criticisms of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, drew standing ovations.

In 2003, Robert Novak identified Wilson in a column written in response to an op-ed piece written by her husband. Joseph Wilson had called the Bush administration's claims for going to war against Iraq unreliable.

Her exposure incited a firestorm and a criminal investigation that eventually led to Libby's conviction for lying and obstructing justice. The outing made it impossible for her to work undercover, she said.

Despite her experience, she encouraged USF students to consider public service. "This country needs smart, young, patriotic people like yourselves."

Some people will continue to deny Plame was undercover until they meet their maker. If Plame was not undercover, all those with similar positions to Plame can be revealed without breaking any ethics or secrecy laws, so Bush can reveal all those who works undercover. What's wrong with this picture? Treason, anyone?

And who politicized it, it was none other than Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. And there are others in the CIA as well, and that is why the agency is flunking their duties. The agency needs some major fixing and redirecting of how it does its job, which is to do intelligence work, not political work.

The Wilsons still irk me every time I think about them.

Isn't that sad that okie gets irked every time he hears Plame's name; first revealed by this administration.

If Plame was undercover, or better term, covert, which may be a different definition, that was a sly selection of term usage, ci, anyway if she was covert, how come the person that outed her is not in jail, namely Richard Armitage? Huff and puff all you want, ci, but the proof of your assumptions is zilch, nothing, you have no evidence, nothing. If a crime was committed, we know who committed the crime, and we have the evidence, so if it was a crime, how come there are no charges? Admit it, this never amounted to a hill of beans.

okie, It's not our fault you don't understand the definitions of covert or undercover. Before I was able to work with nuclear weapons, we had to pass a background check to get a TOP SECRET clearance. All government workers that have exposure to classified material must pass these background checks before they are allowed to share in classified materials - and that includes the president and his administration. There are no exceptions. They are also informed what the penalty is for sharing cliassified information. We are powerless when the people who are supposed to be "policing" these personnel who reveal classified materials and does nothing.

When I worked with nuclear weapons back in the late fifties, the penalty for sharing classified materials with anyone outside of our work area was $10,000 and ten years in prison. FYI, that was a lot of money back in the late fifties. I'm sure the penalties are much harsher today, but it's useless when the people who are supposed to charge the guilty does nothing.

The term, "classified" relates to something somewhat different than the term, "covert." The law we are dealing with here has to do with "covert." If people were more vigorously prosecuted for leaking classified information, we would very likely have some Democratic congressmen or staffers sitting in prison right now.

In your world, you see everything with tainted lens; you can't possibly understand what "secret" or "top secret" means without having some experience with it.

The government even spells it out:


Part 1. Original Classification

Sec. 1.1. Classification Standards.

(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(c) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.
Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:
(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.
Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.


(1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.
(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or the senior agency official described in section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.
(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position title.
(d) Original classification authorities must receive training in original classification as provided in this order and its implementing directives. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and of the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be brought against an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.

(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. If it is not clear which agency has classification responsibility for this information, it shall be sent to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. The Director shall determine the agency having primary subject matter interest and forward the information, with appropriate recommendations, to that agency for a classification determination.
Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories.

Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or

(h) weapons of mass destruction.

Okie, assume arguendo that technically the administration did not commit a crime, don't you agree that what the WH did was reprehensible? It was not only Armitage who leaked her ID, but Rove, Libby, Fleischer, and others worked to leak her ID to the press. This destroyed a big CIA (taxpayer) investment in Brewster-Jennings, endangered foreign agents of the CIA, and, worst of all, damaged the security of the USA. It is truly beyond belief that you can defend the WH.

Then where are the charges? The truth is we had a special prosecutor look into this for how long, years? --- and he has not even asserted any law was broken, beyond a procedural crime during his investigation that had nothing to do with the original crime that was claimed. Zilch, nothing, this case was never going anywhere. When you come up with something actually factually indicating a crime along with the perpetrator, please have Fitz notify us all. In the meantime, your blusterous claims are all fiction.

What Joseph Wilson did was reprehensible, and what the CIA has done to engage in politics to cover its own failures is what is reprehensible. Lay the blame where it belongs.

Both you and Plame ar once again showing your ignorance.
You continue to call it "treason" without even bothering to know what the word means or what our law says about it.

Since treason is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution, it wouldnt be that hard for you to look it up.

But since you appear either to lazy or not intelligent enough to look it up, I will post exactly what the Constitution says.

It can be found in Article 3, Section 3 of our Constitution...



Now, please show me how anyone committed treason in revealing her name.
Also, notice the very specific requirement needed to convict anyone of treason.

So, now you know what the law says about treason, so you can stop calling it treason.
Unless you enjoy being wrong.

It's treason under any other administration. Bush believes he's above all laws. That congress and the supreme court does nothing to make the charges is not "our" fault; our government is not working like it should be. It's too bad you guys don't hear all the warning bells that will destroy our country.