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 ...
"Thanks for your post. I, too, have misgivings about this whole thing and Rove & Libby's role in it. However, what I don't get is the following: If it was such a big deal that she was undercover overseas, why would she possibly then have a desk job at the CIA for 5 years? Certainly the Russians, Chinese, etc. know who is driving up to the CIA headquarters every day? In that case, it is hard to make the case that the White House compromised that she used to be undercover overseas."
That's a heck of a question and sure gives me food for thought. I'll have to ask around and see if I can get an answer to that. I haven't been to DC in ages but I'd love to hear a local weigh in on what the layout of the buildings might be like. Are there secured entrances? Is there some sort of security perimeter to prevent someone taking photos of every car that drives up to the building? Regardless of the Plame issue...wouldn't you think that they'd have state-of-the-art security for a mile around that place?
"2nd, and this is only an opinion and not a comment on the law, it seems that someone who is concerned about being undercover shouldn't involve themselves in political campaigns to destroy they President. "
Another excellent point. I have a hunch we'll have to wait for a trial to have that answered. Interesting though - thanks
"
The second item is that she and her family (especially her husband) lived a very public life in an extremely gossipy city. Many, many people would have made the connection, even if they did not know it for a certainty, they would know it for a near certainty. Do you honestly believe that the intelligence services of foreign governments are less attuned to such circumstances?
I lived and worked in Washington, DC for many years. In fact, I was at one time working for an "attorney" whose practice was a CIA front. I was, apparently, the only person in the entire city who did not know that fact. I learned it from the newspaper one fine morning on my way to work. No legal consequences, because Mr. Attorney was NOT overseas even though he was undercover. I went to my family attorney, just to be certain I had not unintentionally put myself in jeopardy. My attorney started laughing at my naivety - like I said, I was apparently the only person in DC who didn't know. Believe me when I tell you, most people who were acquainted, even on the edges with Joe and Valarie Wilson had a pretty clear idea about her employment."
Fascinating stuff. You must have been a bit scared.
I lived with a guy for 5 years and for the first 3+ years never knew what his Uncle did. It was only after he retired that I found out that he was undercover. A friend's Dad is retired FBI. I'll have to ask her what the family and friends knew while he was on the job.
Bingo!!! That's become my theory. If this was about outing covert agent it would have never gone to the prosecutor. All Bush had to do was ask about her status and he would have known there was no crime. I think Bush and friends set these folks up.
"minor discrepancies, which are NOT MATERIAL to the case, to indict innocent people"
Makes you wonder why anyone would ever go into public service.
Just imagine the nighly nocturnal emissions his wife must have to clean up in his underwear each morning. Chrissy! What a smug, smarmy, arrogant POS!
The problem is, there is a LOT of information about this case outside the control of the MSM, and that info is getting to the regular people little by little, and the MSM is just digging itself deeper into that hole of insignificance they've created for themselves.
Ah geez, don't sugar coat it. Tell us what you really think of Chrissy...lol.
"So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!"
This needs to be repeated over and over.
Has Rush, Hannity, Britt Hume, John Gibson,O'Reilly, anyone, discussed this point?
Wilson did give a lame excuse about that.
If they didn't know she was undercover CIA, then, I don't see how saying, 'oh he was sent at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the CIA'... its simple to envision the question being asked, "who sent joe wilson?"
"By outing her they compromised national security"
How can you "out" someone, when all their friends and neighbors, and basically everyone who knows her already knows that she works for the CIA?
And it is a FACT that she hasn't been stationed outside of the US for over 5 years, which goes to the definition of a covert agent.
And why don't you try to read the information that's out there?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050715-121257-9887r
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.
In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."
"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."
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.