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 ...
A long time ago. He needs a rabies shot.
But there are much better ways than a special prosecutor. You only appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the administration itself, so that's the focus of the investigation.
On another note, Salon has an article up saying that NATO sources confirmed that Fitzgerald requested and received an unpublished Italian government investigation of the forgeries
Contacted Nato huh???
The CIA did say that, the DOJ did it's investigation, and I hate to say it, but despite some of the stuff we still don't know about Wilson, I'm pretty sure White house folks are getting indicted this week. We need to get our heads around this now, cause I'm pretty sure it's going down that way...
We?
You've been here 90 minutes and already it's "we?"
Gotta stop lurking sometime. :)
So do we conclude from this? 1) She was a covert agent who had been compromised or 2) that the DOJ upon dismissing that claim turned up something else or 3) that they wanted an independent confirmation because of the politics involved?
Interesting, huh?
Yep ... leads me to believe even more that what the media/press is reporting is full of BS
2 & 3
Do I hear an AMEN, brothahs and sistahs?
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< FairOpinion
"So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!" >>
[1] Because GW Bush wimped out again and [2] because his much-vaunted serially-wimped-out Attorney-General, busy draping his departments statues, "recused himself" from a simple administrative chore and gave his activist "Democrat" assistant A-G free rein to appoint his activist "Democrat" pal to investigate absolutely nothing on condition he screwed over some Republicans in the process.
"Chrissie has decided to play to the blogosphere and other whacko lefties."
That's because Keith Olbermann started getting better ratings than Chrissy-poo.
"He was really serious about the "uniter, not a divider" a few years back. But, outside of Texas, that's a fool's errand."
One would hope by now that Bush would have learned that when you extend a hand of friendship to the Democrats, you are more likely than not to pull back a bloody stump.
First of all Novak didn't call to find out if she was a "spy" he called to verify that she recommended her husband for the trip to Niger. If the CIA wanted the story quashed they didn't have to tell Novak that she was undercover, they only had to say "Don't print that story" No explaination required. Any reputable journalist would have stopped right there. If they needed further incentive to not publish, a simple "you will be prosecuted" would have sufficed. And yes, they can, and do do that.
Any of the three are posibilities really. Looking at what's going on, who's doing what, what's been going on as far as who's being called to testify, and what the various people leaking are saying, I'm guessing #1. But no one really knows for sure of course. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
...and all because Ashcroft didn't want to open himself up to charges of "coverup". Rather ironic, considering what's going on now.
"So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!" >>
[1] Because GW Bush wimped out again and [2] because his much-vaunted serially-wimped-out Attorney-General, busy draping his departments statues, "recused himself" from a simple administrative chore and gave his activist "Democrat" assistant A-G free rein to appoint his activist "Democrat" pal to investigate absolutely nothing on condition he screwed over some Republicans in the process.
===
I am afraid you hit the nail on the head and are 100% correct.
Mike Barone is THE MAN.
It was about time someone pointed out the facts so clearly.
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.