Tico still can't understand why outing a Secret CIA agent is not a breach of national security. Makes one wonder how these guys ever get through the bar exam.
cicerone imposter wrote:Ticomaya, Go back and reread what I claimed what Bush first said, then covered himself with another statement about "charged with a crime."
Nothing cherry-picked at all; what McCleannan says only supports my earlier contention about Bush's position on the Plam Affair.
Bush tries to back-track, but only people like you see nothing wrong with the handling of this crime.
You're the one nit-picking.
What crime?
No, Bush was specific about taking action if a crime was committed. Only libs such as yourself who are desperate to find fault with Bush are claiming he's changed his mind. When he's given a specific response on the matter, he has consistently said he would take action with a member of his administration if it was determined that a crime had been committed. McClellan was relatively clear about it on 9/29, and when Bush spoke on 9/30, he was crystal clear about it. No back-tracking at all.
Checking in again here and I see the subject is now onto the outing of Valerie Plame, but to follow up on the Niger yellow cake and the 16 words, as the factcheck.org indicates, the administration retracted the claim, but bottom line Bush was not intentionally lying. This event needs to be evaluated from what was known at that point in time, and what Bush knew at the time, and perhaps more importantly what the speech writers knew at the time, not according to the spin years later.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
And to dredge up this speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
In this speech is the following paragraph:
"Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? "
Bush took office after years of the previous administration that made similar claims about Iraq. We know Bush did not tell Clinton what to say then, or coerce the CIA into its intelligence activities then. The truth is both Clinton and the U.N. did plenty of jawing about the Saddam Hussein problem, but Bush decided to do something about it. Now, there are many political operatives attempting to spin the history as if Bush made all of this up so that he could go to war.
Carry on.
I took the liberty to edit out portions of this article, because it had little relevance to the theme of this article, and it was a mistake on Mr Hart's part in identifying somebody in error.
By Gary Hart:
The federal statute making it a criminal penalty to knowingly divulge the identity of anyone working undercover for the Central Intelligence Agency was not enacted in a vacuum.
Richard Welch, a brilliant Harvard-educated classicist, had been stationed in Greece as CIA station chief only a few months before he was murdered, by a radical Greek terrorist organization called the 17th of November, in the doorway of his house in Athens on Dec. 23, 1975.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative. It carries penalties of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for each offense. There are those who dismiss the crime by saying, "Oh, Wilson only had a desk job." That is not a defense under this felony statute. It is for the CIA, not Karl Rove or Robert Novak, to determine who requires identity protection and who does not.
The political irony of all this is that conservative elements in America have always proclaimed themselves more concerned than anyone else with national security, the sanctity of classified information, protection of sources, support for our intelligence and military services, and so on. At radical times in our past, irresponsible leftist groups thought it was their duty to try to reveal the names of CIA agents. Now, under a conservative administration, it is these conservative national security champions who are saying, with regard to the "outing" of a CIA undercover officer, "Where's the crime?"
There is further irony in the fact that now the premier intelligence agency of the United States, the CIA, is in utter disarray. Morale is desperately low. Many of the best career officers are leaving. As the source of unbiased professional intelligence, the CIA has been diminished and pushed aside by the Department of Defense. This at a time when it is critical to national security to have the best possible intelligence to protect us from terrorism.
I served on the first Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee in the late 1970s and have continued to be a strong believer in and supporter of the CIA. I deplore those who want to diminish it, politicize it, or require it to produce bogus intelligence it would not otherwise produce simply to fit some preconceived political or ideological agenda. In almost every case where the CIA has malfunctioned, it did so under pressure from one political administration or another.
So, there's the crime. To casually and willfully endanger the life of an undercover CIA agent is a felony. You either believe in taking the laws of the United States seriously or you do not. Citizens - even highly placed ones - do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey and which they will not. Miller and her publisher may think she's a hero, but I don't. It is well established that there is no First Amendment protection for a journalist or anyone else to withhold evidence of a crime.
There is one final irony to this story. On Christmas Eve in 1975, I got a call at my home from the director of the CIA, William Colby. He asked if I would intervene with the White House to obtain presidential approval to have Welch buried at Arlington National Cemetery, a hero fallen in service to his country. I quickly called President Ford's chief of staff on Colby's behalf and made the request. Within two hours, the president had agreed to sign the order permitting Welch to be buried at Arlington.
The chief of staff's name was Richard Cheney.
Tico, The following is extracted from the above article:
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Show us where it mentions "national security" as a condition for it to be a felony?
Art. III, Sec. 3 of the constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
It is clear that Bush and his close aides gave our country's enemies aid and comfort. Thus, their acts are treasonous, and those persons should, at a minimum, be removed from office.
Ticomaya wrote:Amigo wrote:Ticomaya wrote:...
Can you explain to me how exactly you theorize one can commit treason if one doesn't violate the law?
And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered.
...
Sure, Why you would ask is ridiculous but what the hell.
Revealing the Identity of an agent working for you own country for political retaliation is Treacherous and a threat to national security.
Then to say;
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Knowing in advance that a violation cannot be proven. Is "not violating law" while commiting treason.
.
You'll note that my question was how you have concluded it to be "treason" if there is no violation of the law. Your answer, it appears, is that you believe it is "treason" because you think it's "Treacherous" and a threat to national security. But as you know, I've also asked you to explain
how national security was endangered by the revelation of Plame's identity, and you didn't answer that question either. You seem to think it's treason and a threat to national security because ... well, because it just
is.
And I think you presume an awful lot to make the claim that the revelation of her identity was "for political retaliation." It seems reasonably clear the purpose was to explain that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, not at the request of Dick Cheney as he claimed.
ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution provides:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_2.htm
Plame worked on WMD's in Iraq and Iran. When the Bush administartion "burned" plame's identity. They/he gave aid to the enemy (see above).
If I violate the law and It cannot be proven have I still violated the law?
You see, I can violate the law of treason and gaurd myself (or others) against proof. I have "commited treason without violating the law"
Here is an example of the same thing done by the same people;
http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/browse_thread/thread/f10717240b6077b0/4966c848ad073584?lnk=st&q=Rove+fired+from+Bush+Sr's+'92+campaign+over+leak+to+Novak&rnum=2&hl=en#4966c848ad073584
"Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source. "
The constitution is the law. Bush and his aids clearly violated the treason provision.
Advocate wrote:Art. III, Sec. 3 of the constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
It is clear that Bush and his close aides gave our country's enemies aid and comfort. Thus, their acts are treasonous, and those persons should, at a minimum, be removed from office.
No, it's not clear that Bush did anything of the kind. Explain how Bush
et al. gave our enemies aid and comfort?
cicerone imposter wrote:Tico, The following is extracted from the above article:
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Show us where it mentions "national security" as a condition for it to be a felony?
It has never been established that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in the IIPA. You disagree?
Amigo wrote:ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution provides:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_2.htm
Plame worked on WMD's in Iraq and Iran. When the Bush administartion "burned" plame's identity. They/he gave aid to the enemy (see above).
If I violate the law and It cannot be proven have I still violated the law?
You see, I can violate the law of treason and gaurd myself (or others) against proof. I have "commited treason without violating the law"
Here is an example of the same thing done by the same people;
http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/browse_thread/thread/f10717240b6077b0/4966c848ad073584?lnk=st&q=Rove+fired+from+Bush+Sr's+'92+campaign+over+leak+to+Novak&rnum=2&hl=en#4966c848ad073584
"Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source. "
Plame was not "covert," and I've been lead to believe she was not covert since 1997 when it was discovered that she had been "outed" by Aldrich Ames. Plame may very well have been working on issues pertaining to WMD regarding Iraq and Iran, but so are a good many other people who work for the CIA. Revealing that someone works for the CIA does not automatically mean you've committed treason.
Now, are you ready to explain how doing so provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy?
Yes, if you violate the law and it cannot be proven, you have still violated the law. But by that same token, if you
don't violate the law and it cannot be proven that you didn't violate the law, you have still
not violated the law. What have we established by this little exercise? Nothing.
So what is this super secret law you claim Bush has violated?
Ticomaya wrote:It has never been established that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in the IIPA. You disagree?
From Wiki:
Quote:There are various disputes over Plame's status as a "covert" agent. This issue is complicated somewhat by a variety of definitions of "covert." While it appears to be clear that Plame's employment status was formally classified by the CIA, and that her employment was therefore "undercover," and/or "classified," and that she had been classified as a NOC or Non-Official Cover agent, various commentators have argued that at the time of the Novak article, Plame did not fit the legal definition of "covert" as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, at the very least, the administration is responsible for blowing the cover of an agent who was formally classified by the CIA, undercover and/or classified, and that she was classified as a Non-Officiel Cover agent.
Well then, no big deal!
The best you (and other Bush apologists) can do is hide behind semantics. Revealing her identity for strictly political purposes was shameful, disgusting, and completely inappropriate. Go ahead and try to split hairs, since that's the best (and only) possible defense for such actions.
They blew Plame's cover, and destroyed the effectiveness of Brewster-Jennings, her CIA-owned cover company. As you know, she, through the cover company, was monitoring Iran's work on WMD. Her intell. drop, a law firm, was compromised. We can assume that Iranians associated with Plame and the company have been scooped up. Further, agents using the drop have been compromised.
Do you deny that this gave aid and comfort to Iran?
JustanObserver wrote:Ticomaya wrote:It has never been established that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in the IIPA. You disagree?
From Wiki:
Quote:There are various disputes over Plame's status as a "covert" agent. This issue is complicated somewhat by a variety of definitions of "covert." While it appears to be clear that Plame's employment status was formally classified by the CIA, and that her employment was therefore "undercover," and/or "classified," and that she had been classified as a NOC or Non-Official Cover agent, various commentators have argued that at the time of the Novak article, Plame did not fit the legal definition of "covert" as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, at the very least, the administration is responsible for blowing the cover of an agent who was formally classified by the CIA, undercover and/or classified, and that she was classified as a Non-Officiel Cover agent.
Well then, no big deal!
The best you (and other Bush apologists) can do is hide behind semantics. Revealing her identity for strictly political purposes was shameful, disgusting, and completely inappropriate. Go ahead and try to split hairs, since that's the best (and only) possible defense for such actions.
Actually, the best I can do is point out all the ridiculous BS that comes flying towards Bush in the desperate hope that it will stick.
"
Shameful, disgusting, and completely inappropriate"? Whatever you say, and you're entitled to your opinion, but such does not constitute any crime I'm aware of.
Advocate wrote:They blew Plame's cover, and destroyed the effectiveness of Brewster-Jennings, her CIA-owned cover company. As you know, she, through the cover company, was monitoring Iran's work on WMD. Her intell. drop, a law firm, was compromised. We can assume that Iranians associated with Plame and the company have been scooped up. Further, agents using the drop have been compromised.
Do you deny that this gave aid and comfort to Iran?
Yes, I deny it. I've read reports that there is absolutely NO harm to have come from the revelation that Valerie Plame works for the CIA. And at this juncture I'm lead to believe those reports, and not your assumptions.
Articles in The Washington Post,[41] The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications have pointed to Plame's association with Brewster Jennings & Associates, a fictitous one-person law services office that was nothing more than "a telephone and a post office box."[42] Disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute raises the issue of whether Karl Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies.[43] However, Title 18, United States Code, Section 641[44] prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes and was found to apply in the conviction of Jonathan Randel[45].
While the complete list of witnesses who have testified before the grand jury is not known (Fitzgerald has conducted his investigation with much more discretion than previous presidential investigations[46]), a number of individuals have acknowledged giving testimony, including White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former special advisor to the president Karen Hughes, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.[47] On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses.[48] Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.[49]
Ticomaya wrote:Actually, the best I can do is point out all the ridiculous BS that comes flying towards Bush in the desperate hope that it will stick.
"Shameful, disgusting, and completely inappropriate"? Whatever you say, and you're entitled to your opinion, but such does not constitute any crime I'm aware of.
Another dodge. Let me rephrase and see if I get a straight answer this time:
JustanObserver wrote:At the very least, the administration is responsible for blowing the cover of an agent who was formally classified by the CIA, undercover, and that she was classified as a Non-Official Cover agent.
Do you feel it is appropriate to do such a thing for strictly political purposes? This is a totally serious question.
Even your above Newsweek article admits to break the law, the person leaking must know the person is covert when revealing the identity. So what are we still doing investigating a crime that has never been demonstrated as a crime? Most of us have known this from day 1. I've said this many times, but I want to know why Fitzgerald continues to waste time on this?
