ticomaya, It's true until you prove it wrong. Are you really an attorney?
Tico, are you saying that the government classified your identity?
I have read some of your arguments regarding the IIPA, and they are unconvincing.
cicerone imposter wrote:ticomaya, It's true until you prove it wrong. Are you really an attorney?
No, c.i. ... I'm a retired middle manager with no formal education. Cut me some slack.
Advocate wrote:Tico, are you saying that the government classified your identity?
No ... but please enunciate your argument for us.
Quote:I have read some of your arguments regarding the IIPA, and they are unconvincing.
Thankfully, I'm not trying to convince you.
Are you prepared to make your argument for why you feel she fits the definition of "covert agent" in the IIPA?
Ticomaya wrote:
Parados made the point that Plame's employment with the CIA was a "secret." That point is not relevant to the discussion, unless it is against the law to to disclose the secret. That's the relevance of the IIPA.
It seems Tico is arguing that there is nothing illegal in revealing classified information. An interesting argument there Tico. That is your argument, isn't it?
I guess there isn't any crime in that, Parados, as certain Democrats in Congress and their staffs reveal classified information as standard operating procedure. How do you think Leahy became called "Leaky Leahy?" In those cases, its called "whistle blowing" and it is honorable. After all, I thought Wilson's trip to Niger was classified until he started writing op eds in the newspapers?
Novak wrote about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, not Wilson himself.
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
Parados made the point that Plame's employment with the CIA was a "secret." That point is not relevant to the discussion, unless it is against the law to to disclose the secret. That's the relevance of the IIPA.
It seems Tico is arguing that there is nothing illegal in revealing classified information. An interesting argument there Tico. That is your argument, isn't it?
I think your argument is interesting. Do you think every government official who reveals unauthorized
classified information to reporters is guilty of a crime and should be prosecuted?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Novak wrote about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, not Wilson himself.
Wilson's editorial,
What I didn't find in Africa (note: 3rd-party archived version), first appeared in the July 6, 2003 NYT. Novak's editorial,
Mission to Niger, was first published the following week, on July 14th, 2003.
Tico, I had previously said why the IIPA might include Plame. The argument is made that she was not stationed abroad during the five years after returning to Langley. However, she did travel abroad on business during the five years, thereby meeting the definition.
Advocate wrote:Tico, I had previously said why the IIPA might include Plame. The argument is made that she was not stationed abroad during the five years after returning to Langley. However, she did travel abroad on business during the five years, thereby meeting the definition.
So what's your argument? That "traveling abroad on business" is sufficient? The pertinent language in the IIPA is, "
or has within the last five years served outside the United States." Does a trip abroad constitute "served"? There may be more to the analysis than just the fact that she took a trip overseas, and it would probably be wrong to assume that the fact that a trip overseas occurred means she "served" ... particularly if her trip was of short duration.
If it can be established that she "served" within the relevant 5 year period, what is your theory for why there hasn't been an indictment under the IIPA?
Quote:Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
George W Bush - Dec 17, 2005
Also (from my previous post):
While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation.
According to her sources, the damage assessment . . . called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt. . . . [and showed] "significant damage to operational equities."
Alexandrovna also reports that while Plame was undercover she was involved in an operation identifying and tracking weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran, suggesting that her outing "significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation." Her sources also stated that the outing of Plame also compromised the identity of other covert operatives who had been working, like Plame, under non-official cover status. These anonymous officials said that in their judgement, the CIA's work on WMDs has been set back "ten years" as a result of the compromise.[64]
MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported on Hardball later, on May 1, 2006, that MSNBC had learned "new information" about the potential consequences of the leaks:
Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the Administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. The White House considers Iran to be one of America's biggest threats.[65]
cicerone, you can't be serious?
okie, If it's not serious, show where it's not. Blatant refutals just don't cut it.
If Valerie Plame Wilson is the best we have in the way of tracking Iranian nuclear programs, I would say we might as well hang it up anyway, cicerone. You can't be serious that losing her services cost us 10 years. The CIA's credibility is already in tatters without putting out this nonsense. Besides, I thought Plame Wilson was going to be staying home raising their twins anyway. There is so much about this that smells to high heaven. Without plowing old ground too much, Plame's identity was compromised long before Bush took office. And why do you think Joseph Wilson does not want to testify under oath? There is credible possibility that he is the one or they are the ones that revealed her identity in recent years.
The story about Plame Wilson's so-called blown cover is spin by anti-Bush elements in the CIA.
And all of this argument doesn't matter anyway, as Fitzgerald has never to this day confirmed the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity was a crime.
okie, You're not even in the CIA or any of its management positions. Your opinion is worth shet in this case. Who assigned you as her supervisor?
Reputations are earned, cicerone. Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, of Vanity Fair fame, are obviously better media hounds than they are agents.
Cicerone, her identity was revealed to the Russians about 1994.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004362.php
And Novak learned it by connecting the dots and then being told by the CIA themselves, by CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html
This case is as big a joke as the Duke rape case.
okie wrote:If Valerie Plame Wilson is the best we have in the way of tracking Iranian nuclear programs, I would say we might as well hang it up anyway, cicerone. You can't be serious that losing her services cost us 10 years. The CIA's credibility is already in tatters without putting out this nonsense. Besides, I thought Plame Wilson was going to be staying home raising their twins anyway. There is so much about this that smells to high heaven.
Valueless ranting.
olie wrote:Without plowing old ground too much, Plame's identity was compromised long before Bush took office.
Or so the Right would want us to believe.
olie wrote:And why do you think Joseph Wilson does not want to testify under oath? There is credible possibility that he is the one or they are the ones that revealed her identity in recent years.
There is the even more credible possiblity that you're full of it.
okie wrote:The story about Plame Wilson's so-called blown cover is spin by anti-Bush elements in the CIA.
Ooooh, those nasty people out to get Bush.
olie wrote:And all of this argument doesn't matter anyway, as Fitzgerald has never to this day confirmed the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity was a crime.
So what are you so worked up about?
