8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 06:46 pm
At the core of the leaks by any government official to reveal a CIA agent is wrong whether it's legal or not. "That" is the issue.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 06:49 pm
okie wrote:
Cyclops, it does matter, because that is the likely explanation as to why Plame was working primarily a desk job in D.C. because her identity had already been compromised.

And also explain why the CIA itself confirmed Plame's identity to Novak? Perhaps the CIA guy should be prosecuted?

To replow old ground, there are several hurdles to make this outing a crime, and at least a couple of them have never been established. It is a long ways from being a crime. Libby is suffering from a stupid procedural crime, that of perjury in an investigation into a crime that is not a crime. An absolute joke.


No, it isn't a joke. It's how you get the evidence for the big crimes that you know happened, but can't prove. You convict the people who don't really believe that it will happen to them. See, Libby still doesn't really believe that he's going to do jailtime - but he will. Fitzgerald has completely won the pre-trial phase and is going to demolish Libby during the trial, what with his 'I can't remember' defense. Doesn't work for mobsters, won't work for him. Let's see what he has to say when he faces years in a Federal pound-me-in-the-a$$ prison.

There is a great deal of evidence - available to the public, even - that there was collusion amongst the high-level members of the WH to 'deal' with this situaiton. There is evidence that more than one member of the administration lied to the FBI about what happened. Whether or not the way they 'dealt' with the situation is criminal or not is still unproven. But to declare the situation over already is the height of foolishness.

I have little doubt that the two of you were on the wrong side of Iran-Contra during the 80's as well. You should know that there really isn't anyone under the age of 35 who believes that the Reagan admin not only knew what was going on, but should have been strung up for the crimes they committed in the American name. History will be no kinder to Bush, Cheney, Libby, and Rove - no matter how the trials turn out, everyone knows that they're guilty. Sort of an OJ situation; the legal defense mounted by Libby might make him, and the admin, technically innocent, but history will not judge them so. Just a prediction.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 06:51 pm
Assessing the good a leak will do: It all comes down to how you evaluate the public benefit, which will result from a leak and the harm that may be done at the same time. If the leak reveals a government action that is illegal or harms individuals significantly, then it more easily can be ethically justified. If the leak serves the purely political or self-interest of the leaker, for example Richard Armitage's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, then it is wrong.

Assessing the harm a leak will do: Self-interest and self-righteousness can cloud the potential leaker's view of the harm a leak may do. It is critical to get another's perspective on what harm will result. It is also inadequate to pass over it too quickly with an attitude that the ends always justify the means.

Do these ethical principles help us assess the leaks by George Keyworth, or by the individual who gave the National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times?

For Keyworth, one has to ask the status of his obligation to HP and to his fellow board members to protect the confidentiality of their board deliberations. We also have to determine whether what he leaked was publicly known already, and whether harm was done by the leak. Even if no damage was done by the information leaked, it is possible there was damage to the culture of trust on the HP board.

For the individuals who leaked the National Intelligence Estimate regarding the risk of terrorism, there are similar questions. The information was clearly a classified government secret, and those who had possession of it also had a legal obligation not to leak the information. At issue is the benefit that might result from the leak. It is likely the leakers felt that the information they revealed might lead to a change in Iraq policy, which in turn could save lives and lower the long-term risk of terrorism. They may be very wrong in their assessment. At minimum, the leakers should be concerned that they get the information right, that their judgment about the public benefit of the leak is well formed, and that they are willing to pay the price if discovered.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 10:26 pm
You guys only demonstrate partisanship at its finest. I notice you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in Sandy Berger stealing documents and destroying documents, documents that could show the Clinton administration was negligent in preventing 911. Close to 3,000 people died, and nobody seems to care that the investigation into the events preceding the event has been altered and corrupted by a corrupt member of administration. I see that as far more serious, but nobody cares.

You also don't care when classified information is passed from congressional staffers to news outlets on a regular basis, jeopardizing intelligence efforts, and some leaks have occurred from the intelligence committees. Guess what. Nobody cares, especially Democrats when it is their own that does it. Frankly, your hypocrisy and partisanship is sickening. You justify some leaks as being beneficial, well, I think blowing the whistle on Joseph Wilson's vendetta was beneficial as well.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 10:40 pm
okie, Your charge is hollow without proof. You can declare anything, but it's worthless until you provide the proof/evidence.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Dec, 2006 10:53 pm
Gotta love irony.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 03:27 am
IMO, a lot of the confusion surrounding this discussion stems from the resistance on both sides' parts to admit where their side is wrong. I think that both Berger/Clinton and their shameful theft of documents to cover their trail, and Bushco's dealings with Wilson/Plame are despicable, scummy shames.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 06:36 am
okie wrote:
You guys only demonstrate partisanship at its finest. I notice you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in Sandy Berger stealing documents and destroying documents, documents that could show the Clinton administration was negligent in preventing 911. Close to 3,000 people died, and nobody seems to care that the investigation into the events preceding the event has been altered and corrupted by a corrupt member of administration. I see that as far more serious, but nobody cares.

You also don't care when classified information is passed from congressional staffers to news outlets on a regular basis, jeopardizing intelligence efforts, and some leaks have occurred from the intelligence committees. Guess what. Nobody cares, especially Democrats when it is their own that does it. Frankly, your hypocrisy and partisanship is sickening. You justify some leaks as being beneficial, well, I think blowing the whistle on Joseph Wilson's vendetta was beneficial as well.


The two investigations are independent of each other. Wrong-doing in either case does not excuse or justify wrong-doing in the other. Both ought to proceed with full vigor.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 08:52 am
A functional differention exists in that in the Plame Game there has been established no underlying crime, a circumstance not reflected in Mr. Berger's demonstrated and self-acknowledged theft and other mishandling of classified material.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:14 am
Dammit, timber - you know that what they did outing Plame was wrong. Why can't you admit that, and stop mushmouthing about proving a crime?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:28 am
snood, you proceed from the unestablished proposition that "They" - whoever "They" might be, itself undefined and apparently a moving target - "Outed" anyone, Plame or otherwise. Further, as a matter of law, that Plame may have been, by function, definition, and/or actual effect, a "Covert Agent" remains unestablished.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:42 am
It's amazing to me that you can lie to yourself in this fashion, Timber.

Court proof aside, you know as well as anyone else that the WH was retaliating at wilson...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:42 am
It's amazing to me that you can lie to yourself in this fashion, Timber.

Court proof aside, you know as well as anyone else that the WH was retaliating at wilson...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:46 am
By definition, Cyc, that allegation is assumption; no finding of same has been established.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:49 am
timberlandko wrote:
By definition, Cyc, that allegation is assumption; no finding of same has been established.


Yeah, but you know it is the case. In any event, the crime he's charged with is lying to a grand jury and that stands on its own as an offense.

Merry Christmas, you big retrograde lug.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 09:51 am
timberlandko wrote:
By definition, Cyc, that allegation is assumption; no finding of same has been established.


I didn't say that legally that has been established; just that your judgemental ability as a human tells you what is likely to have occured in this case.

I would love to hear your thoughts on OJ, another innocent man...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 10:19 am
Merry Christmas to you and yours, too, bernie, and all the best in the coming year. BTW - have you seen Tea? She popped into A2K under a new nom de 'net here quite recently. If you do cross paths, please extend my warmest regards to her as well.


Cyc, what my judgemental ability tells me likely is to have occurred is that Armitage let slip, inadvertantly, information which served only as additional confirmation of information to which Novak, and, by the evidence, very most likely others, already was privvy. No evidence exists which indicates any orchestrated effort, nor even intent, group or individual, on the part of anyone, to smear, intimidate, or otherwise to retaliate against Wilson via disclosing his wife's role in the affair.

I lay blame for the OJ travesty directly at the feet of then-LA County DA Gil Garcetti - it was his decision to hold the trial - and thus define the jury pool - in LA City proper, as opposed to jurisdictionally correct but less media-freindly Santa Monica. And a Very Merry Christmass to you and yours as well, and best wishes for the coming year.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Dec, 2006 10:55 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Gertz' story was written in July, 2004, and it states that Nicholas Kristof wrote a column in 2003 pointing out that the CIA pulled Plame back in because they suspected her cover was compromised by Aldrich Ames:

Bill Gertz wrote:
[Note: this was reported last year by Nick Kristof. The CIA has suspected for a long time that Aldrich Ames gave Plame's name to the Russians sometime before 1994.]


The Washington Monthly article even includes a link to an October 11, 2003, Washington Monthly article by Kevin Drum pointing out Kristof's 2003 column, and linking to it.


Yes, and here is an excerpt from that Kevin Drum article:
Quote:
After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.


The energy analyst part clearly was for operating in the Middle East.

So a switch to stateside duties might well have been in the near future for Plame, but they had not occurred yet at the time of the outing. She was still working "non-official cover" as an energy analyst.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Dec, 2006 03:16 pm
Quote:
No evidence exists which indicates any orchestrated effort, nor even intent, group or individual, on the part of anyone, to smear, intimidate, or otherwise to retaliate against Wilson via disclosing his wife's role in the affair.


Um, you may want to actually read the thread before making statements such as this, as there most certainly is evidence that this is exactly what happened; accounts of conversations, lies about what was said in those conversations, lies about who knew about Plame and how early they knew it. Documents passed around on AF1 about it. I understand that this evidence is inconvenient to your theory that the Bush crew didn't break the law, but to claim that there exists no evidence of orchestrated efforts is untrue.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Dec, 2006 03:31 pm
There can be only one motivation for revealing Plame. If you can't figure out this one, you'll never blame the Bush cabal for anything.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 05:44:37