Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

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.

No. Treasonous actions are already on the books. It's not our fault if you fail to understand the laws.

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.

We will just have to disagree on this. I am one that sees the CIA engaging in very unwise and politically charged undermining of the administration. First, they tell Bush that Hussein probably has WMD, as officially reported through the proper channels via the head of the CIA, which is proper, then when a request is made to investigate the yellowcake story in Niger, they send a diplomat, not an agent, to Niger to talk to officials there, from which he found out nothing new, he then comes back and claims he found no evidence of procuring yellowcake, when his report to the intelligence committee did not agree with this conclusion. He then writes an oped piece about his supposed intelligence work and he makes claims that his work did not support. No wonder the administration wonders who sent this guy and they find it curious that his wife already works there at the CIA, which explains the sham trip, that supposedly he never even got paid for, if you can believe that. The whole thing is a joke, and is made further a joke when the Wilsons appear in Vanity Fair, certainly not consistent with folks that seek to keep a low profile in my opinion.

Robert Novak obtained their identity through in part through legal channels, and even in part because the CIA itself confirmed their identity. Blame the CIA, which has utterly failed us and needs a major reform.

mm, That you would mention the Constitution is an irony you'll never understand.

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, That you would mention the Constitution is an irony you'll never understand.

Actually, no its not.
I support the Constitution 100%.
I believe it means EXACTLY what it says, is not a "living document", and that if its not in the Constitution the govt cannot interpret it to mean whatever they want it to.

I have said that before, and I will continue to say that.
Now, you have said that "It's treason under any other administration."

You have stated that "any other administration" is free to interpret the Constitution any way they want, and to ignore what the Constitution says about treason and what it is and how someone can be convicted of it.

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring the Constitution in this case.

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, That you would mention the Constitution is an irony you'll never understand.

Actually, no its not.
I support the Constitution 100%.
I believe it means EXACTLY what it says, is not a "living document", and that if its not in the Constitution the govt cannot interpret it to mean whatever they want it to.

I have said that before, and I will continue to say that.
Now, you have said that "It's treason under any other administration."

You have stated that "any other administration" is free to interpret the Constitution any way they want, and to ignore what the Constitution says about treason and what it is and how someone can be convicted of it.

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring the Constitution in this case.

Do you also support the Bill of Rights? b/c, if you do, I'm sure you would agree with me that Bush's illegal spying program violates the 4th amendment.

Cycloptichorn

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, That you would mention the Constitution is an irony you'll never understand.

Actually, no its not.
I support the Constitution 100%.
I believe it means EXACTLY what it says, is not a "living document", and that if its not in the Constitution the govt cannot interpret it to mean whatever they want it to.

I have said that before, and I will continue to say that.
Now, you have said that "It's treason under any other administration."

You have stated that "any other administration" is free to interpret the Constitution any way they want, and to ignore what the Constitution says about treason and what it is and how someone can be convicted of it.

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring the Constitution in this case.

Do you also support the Bill of Rights? b/c, if you do, I'm sure you would agree with me that Bush's illegal spying program violates the 4th amendment.

Cycloptichorn

Whether it violates the 4th amendment or not has not yet been determined, because the legality of the program has not yet been determined.
If it is determined that it is illegal, then yes it does violate the 4th amendment.


And for those of you that dont know, here is the 4th amendment...

Quote:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

JTT, Okie and the rest of the right have no concern for the unwarranted destruction of large populations of innocents. Another example of this is our country's actions in Nam, where we killed over 3 M people.

MM, the big difference is that we were lied into wars with Nam and Iraq.

Advocate wrote:

MM, the big difference is that we were lied into wars with Nam and Iraq.

So that changes how the military does its job?
I dont think so.

Soldiers do their job, irregardless of why we are fighting.

That's a lie. Soldiers are duty bound to refuse to engage in war crimes.

The US military will ALWAYS do whatever it can to avoid civilian casualties, unfortunately it isnt always possible to insure that there will be no innocent casualties.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols.

This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.