Posted on 10/25/2005 9:11:39 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The problem is that the narrative line being offered up by the press is almost entirely wrong. And it is almost certainly true neither of the statutes that might cover the situation -- the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and the Espionage Act of 1917 -- was violated, at least by anyone in the administration.
Consider the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. To violate it, you must disclose the name of a covert agent who has served abroad within the last five years, while knowing that that person was a covert agent. It does not appear that Plame was a covert agent who had served abroad within five years of the disclosure of her name to reporters. She was a desk officer at CIA headquarters at Langley at that time. This law was narrowly drafted and intended only to apply to people who purposefully endangered covert agents abroad. That is clearly not the case here.
The Espionage Act is less narrowly drafted. But it does set out specific things that cannot be disclosed -- ''information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, Navy yard,'' etc. The list does not include identity of CIA agents -- there weren't any in 1917 -- which is why the drafters of the 1982 IIPA felt the need for a new law to protect a very limited class of covert operatives.
So it seems clear to me that an indictment under either of these statutes would be a gross injustice.
To visit the rigors of criminal indictment, trial and punishment on someone who has done nothing that is specifically forbidden is unjust -- the very definition of injustice.
But why should there be indictments if there was no crime?
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
The investigation should never have gotten started. If you read the Acts above, it's clear that Valerie Plame did NOT qualify as a covert agent, therefore "revealing" her name is NO crime. So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!
THAT'S what I've been wondering.....wondering what the Dems are trying to HIDE about others???? Decoy. Hillary's troubles?
Are ya telling me that Chrissy Matthews has lathered himdelf into an unnecessary frenzy?
There may well be indictments, but there shouldn't be.
Someone said, "you can indict a ham sandwich, if you want to".
The point is that this has been nothing but a witch-hunt and a fishing expedition, to find something, anything on the President or his close aides.
"So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!"
Because GWB can't help himself from making nice with Democrats!
He was really serious about the "uniter, not a divider" a few years back. But, outside of Texas, that's a fool's errand.
Reminds me of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football.
There should never have been an investigation.
The special prosecutor should have examined the Acts, the breech of which would be a crime, but since they don't apply, no crime, and the conclusion should have been about 2 DAYS later, that there is nothing to investigate, period.
Instead, after 2 YEARS of fishing expedition they are going to try to find some minor discrepancies, which are NOT MATERIAL to the case, to indict innocent people.
ping
There should have been an investigation. I agree no crime was committed that we know about. I don't rule out indictments against parties we have no knowledge about...ie. reporters/democrats/cia personnel...here's hoping.
"Whoever falsely accused anyone of violating laws that they did not should be in trouble."
I would like to see that.
With some hefty damages for slander.
I never understood how they could appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this, when it seemed to me that it pretty clearly did not involve any crime.
Barone is still one of the best thinkers/observers/pundits out there. Is it possible we're witnessing a lot of chaff to hide the real target of the prosecutor -- rogue elements in the CIA?
bump
There are other laws this could fall under. Not to mention that there could be indictments for related crimes like perjury, obstruction of justice, or conspiracy. I doubt Fitzgerald spent all this time and effort over something we found out after about five minutes of reviewing the laws. He's nowhere near that incompetent and thinking he is is frankly, ludicrous. Not to mention a great deal of the information they're looking at is classified info that none of us know. Don't go jumping the gun quite yet on this...
I think it's going to be someone in the CIA. The indictments are going to be "sealed". If it was Libby or Rove what would be the point. The fact that they suddenly leave their jobs at the WH would make it very, very public.
so glad i don't have TV
I'll admit .. Though I believe Rove did nothing wrong .. I really don't know how this will turn out
With that said .. I would not rule out the CIA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.