Redstate

I don't the MOTIVES much matter at all.  If a crime was committed then it needs to be prosecuted.

And it doesn't much matter whether Libby said she worked in the Winpac or in DoO or said she was a secretary for the CIA.  If he knew what she was actually doing at CIA, which I don't know, then he violated the law.

What crime?

Is the crime you suspect one in which knowledge must be proven?  If so, then the knowledge and intent of the alleged criminal is in fact an element of the crime.

So get out of your anti-Rove berserker rage and wait for some facts before you attack again.

I think we should ALL wait for the report, and not speculate idly, and that goes for the media and their Michael Jackson-like ravings, and also for Mark Kilmer here who may come to have serious egg on his face for posting this now.

interesting article at the daily news, apparantly someone in the adminstration is squealing. this can not be good.

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/356858p-304125c.html

Niel, you stole my point!  I had to register, and by the time I had, someone else on the ball had pointed out the obvious.

The MSM has been utterly derelict in pointing out the fact that knowledge of the exposee's covert status is indeed an element of the crime.  As is motive -- there must be an intent to damage US national security.

Why is the MSM trumpeting this case, when it could lead to an absolute shutdown of the leaks upon which they thrive?

its a story that sells alot of newspapers.

lets face it, what is more tantalizing of a story than adminstration scandal over a CIA spy.

Ummmm, ok.  I guess when I said "IF a crime has been committed" I really went over the edge, didn't I?  Sorry from now on I'll just use the Red State Approved© position of "No crime has been committed. End of Discussion"

Is the crime you suspect one in which knowledge must be proven?  If so, then the knowledge and intent of the alleged criminal is in fact an element of the crime.

OK.  Well that explains why Judith Miller hasn't been brought up on charges.  It remains to be seen if other people will be.

None.  I'm simply relating what the media is reporting.  For me offer a meaningful opinion on whether or not there will be indictments, I would have to have sat through Fitzgerald's case to the grand jury.

Neil, I don't think I heard flyerhawk "attack" anyone. Nor did he sound particularly enraged.

Fortunately for everyone, the facts of this case are being handled by an apolitical Fitzgerald and others with intimate knowledge of the details, and not the partisan bloggers and pundits who are idly speculating about whether a crime was or was not committed based largely on their respective party affiliation.

I've never heard so many people with so few actual facts, and more importantly so little real legal expertise, be soooooo confident (one way or the other) about how this case will be resolved.

To me you appeared to be gloating a little over what you think might turn out to be a fairly trivial scandal with a small "s".

Isn't that already a judgment?  And if so, isn't it a bit rash?

I'm glad you registered, because I forgot about the "intent to damage the US" part.  Good point, thanks.

The MSM has been utterly derelict in pointing out the fact that knowledge of the exposee's covert status is indeed an element of the crime.  As is motive -- there must be an intent to damage US national security.

He was insisting that it doesn't matter what the facts of the alleged crime are, when those facts are part of what will determine whether a crime was committed.

Basically, intentionally or not (ha!), he was trying to portray anyone who leaked Plame's CIA status as a criminal, regardless of whether the facts of the leak match the requirements of the relevant law.

So yes, it was pushing a harshly attacking viewpoint, one analgous to Howard Dean's calling for Tom DeLay to go to prison before being indicted of anything.

I expect that short-circuiting on the mainstream press.  I don't think it should be tolerated here.

Work on your reading comprehension.

What I said was that it DOESN'T matter what job Libby told Miller that Plame was doing.  IF, a conjuction meaning In the event that: someone KNEW that she was a covert op and gave her name out as a person in the employ of the CIA then they VIOLATED THE LAW.

This shoot the messenger garbage gets really tiring here sometimes.  How my comment was analogous to anyone suggesting that Delay should go to prison is truly surreal.  

Are you really that incapable of reasoned discourse on this subject?

Crimes do not need to be punished if they serve our interests.

I do not think that it is much of a scandal, and that was apparant in the post.  (The last line especially.)

But about the egg, I doubt anything Fitzerald's GJ finds will convince me otherwise, thus requiring the removal of that egg.

Now that I think of it, a little egg might be good for the complexion.

So all the evidence points to him believing she wasn't a covert agent, and you come out of the blue to say "No, it doesn't matter," and proceed to push your assumption that he knew it and is guilty.

I don't take aim at all messengers, just the ones bearing unwelcome agendas.

It's not as if anything coherent ever came from Daily Kos.

I have no idea whether Patrick Fitzgerald will bring down indictments or, if he does, who will be indicted.  But, whatever his actions, I want to pre-emptively quash any attack on him or his character from any quarter (including this one).  By every account, including accounts of former colleagues of Fitzgerald's whom I trust, Fitzgerald is a stand up, apolitical guy.  Ronny Earle he ain't.  The only quasi-knack that I've heard against him (and this has been publicly reported) is that he can be a bit Javert-like -- i.e., once he gets his teeth in something, he's tenacious, even though the bigger picture may not suggest that the crime warrants the pursuit.*  [Possibly this trait come through in Judy Miller's jailing.]

von

*Partially as a result of his rep, and because of the length and apparent depth of the investigation, I'm 90% sure that someone will be indicted.

What evidence?  The only "evidence" is that there is a grand jury investigation, Judith Miller was sent to jail because she wouldn't divulge her source material, and Karl Rover was recently brought back to the GJ.  

You seem to want to exonnerate everyone based on any piece of evidence possible.  

You are the one with the agenda.  I've had a wait and see attitude about this since Day 1.  

You can't use speculation to prove that administration members talked to the press about Plame, but then ignore that speculation when it suggests that those who talked to the press were unaware of Plame's covert status.

I liked this gem from the bio piece on Plame:

"The same year she met Wilson, the CIA brought her home to headquarters from overseas out of fear that double agent Aldrich Ames might have spilled her name to the Russians."

Now if her cover is in such jeopardy to require a change of station, 1) could someone else have revealed her cover, 2) wouldn't her cover be permanently jeopardized?  Maybe the prosecutor should be investigating Ames and all those involved with that case...

Remember that in the criminal justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty.

You're free to presume them guilty and have whatever  standard you want to prove innocence, but expect to get challenged on it around here.  You'll simply appear to have a political agenda for doing so.

where I said I had "proven" anything.  

It is entirely possible that Libby had no knowledge of Plame's actual identity.  It's possible he heard it on the cocktail circuit.  It's possible that he was fully aware of her identity and tried to be cagey and out her in a backhanded sort of way.  It's also possible that he found out that Plame was a CIA employee through Dick Cheney.  If that's the case then any of the previous possibilities apply to Cheney as well.

We will find out next week what the Grandy Jury believes.

how I can be any more clear in NOT presuming them guilty than this....

And it doesn't much matter whether Libby said she worked in the Winpac or in DoO or said she was a secretary for the CIA.  If he knew what she was actually doing at CIA, which I don't know, then he violated the law

Not only did I say IF he knew I ALSO said I DON'T KNOW if he knew.  What the heck else do you want?  A 2 paragraph disclaimer attached to each post?

Uncalled for in the specific, no matter how I might agree in general.

Do you have ANY evidence at all to support your fantasies about criminals in the administration then?

You seem to want to have it both ways here, Neil.

You attack flyerhawk for using speculation to conclude there was a crime (which he actually doesn't seem to do but whatever), and then you rely on comparable speculation to call into question whethere there was a crime.

Perhaps, in the absence of any real facts, you should simply chill out, and wait to see if there are any indictments.

Well we should know fairly soon anyway.

And you're right we should all have a bit egg on our faces once in a while! :-)  

Raw Story (take it FWIW) is reporting that a Cheney aide, John Hannah, has become a witness for the prosecution.  Hannah is apparently what's turned to investigation on to Cheney (he's saying Cheney either gave him permission or ordered him to leak the name).

fitzgerald didn`t spend 2 years of his life on a wild goose chase, someone is getting indicted, who is the big question.it may not be the crime that`s the problem it may be the coverup.someone

should have fessed up to this a long time ago when it was a minor  offense, now it`s starting to sound like watergate.

should be very greatful to Fitz, whatever happens with the Plame thing, for going after the mother of all RINOs George Ryan, probably one of the most corrupt human beings I have ever seen.

and you didn't bother to say "Mother, may I?" You just figured you'd re-register under a different name, eh?

Why would the CIA refer the outing of a "desk jockey" to the Justice Department for investigation of "possible Federal Crimes"?

Why would the presiding Federal Judge in this case, after reviewing secret evidence in Fitzgerald's possession, agree that Judith Miller's testimony was vital enough to throw her into jail for not doing so?

Why would the Federal Appeals Court panel, consisting of three Federal Judges, unanimously determine that indeed, the secret Fitzgerald evidence that they reviewed caused them to conclude that Miller's testimony was vital in getting to the bottom of the outing of a member of the CIA steno pool, and thus voted not to release her from jail until she testified in front of the Grand Jury?

It would seem to me that this is quite a hubbub for politics as "usual", and also extremely curious, considering that some have determined that Ms. Plame was little more than a member of the secretarial pool at the CIA. You would think that a guy as smart as Fitzgerald could have figured that one out on the first day, let alone four Federal Judges.

How does this "sound like watergate"?

Just curious.

Thanks.

someone in the administration told several reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

How bout you show me where I posted any fantasies of criminals in the administration?

Really, if that's a fact, then why can't you say who it is?

Why don't you go read at the top of this thread and see who was continuing the liberal drive to paint the administration as criminal before you tell me to "chill out?"

of criminals "in the administration."  Do you think some automated white house email system told Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency?

The point is, you don't know who leaked what.

You can't prove it was someone in the administration.  For all we know, Joe Wilson leaked it in order to play the victim.

"Why would the CIA refer the outing of a "desk jockey" to the Justice Department for investigation of "possible Federal Crimes"?

Why would the presiding Federal Judge in this case, after reviewing secret evidence in Fitzgerald's possession, agree that Judith Miller's testimony was vital enough to throw her into jail for not doing so?

Why would the Federal Appeals Court panel, consisting of three Federal Judges, unanimously determine that indeed, the secret Fitzgerald evidence that they reviewed caused them to conclude that Miller's testimony was vital in getting to the bottom of the outing of a member of the CIA steno pool, and thus voted not to release her from jail until she testified in front of the Grand Jury?

It would seem to me that this is quite a hubbub for politics as "usual", and also extremely curious, considering that some have determined that Ms. Plame was little more than a member of the secretarial pool at the CIA. You would think that a guy as smart as Fitzgerald could have figured that one out on the first day, let alone four Federal Judges."

_____

"fitzgerald didn`t spend 2 years of his life on a wild goose chase, someone is getting indicted, who is the big question.it may not be the crime that`s the problem it may be the coverup.someone

should have fessed up to this a long time ago when it was a minor  offense, now it`s starting to sound like watergate."

_____

A liberal agenda, maybe?  snickers

I am not an attorney and so acknowledge I may be off-base here, but my understanding is that there have been at least two espionage convictions in past years where there was no intent to harm the US.

I write, of course, of the 1984 conviction of Samuel Morrison and the 2005 conviction of Lawrence Franklin.  Neither were with "intent to harm the US."  I suspect we don't really know how the latter would have played out, but in the former the courts decided (paraphrasing) that a 'reasonable man's expectation of harm' was sufficient whether actual intent to harm was present or not.  Given, that is, the assumption that most "reasonable men" would say that telling the world that this person is one of your nation's spies is a harm.

That, anyway, is my understanding.  And so I'm a little confused as to on what basis mens rea is being claimed in light of this history.

prove it, but again, you just asked for evidence, and I think Matt Cooper testifying before the grand jury (as decribed by him in Time magazine) that Karl Rove told him Wilson's wife worked for the agency certainly qualifies.  

It's hard to meet your requirements when you keep changing them after the fact.  

Please, keep on using Red State to whisper about and smear the administration.

If the people in charge want to keep letting you do it, I just don't care.

You forget that you are dealing with a special prosectutor.   Who knows where he has taken this?   The State Dept. memo may be key, and there are other statutes regarding classified material that he can bring into play as well.  

But just like Starr went from a real estate deal to a stained blue dress, this guy could come back with anything.   The sky is the limit.

I had this same debate last night.  See here for a very familiar exchange:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/16/102955/59/23#23

You're doing a good job arguing for a wait and see approach.  Those agruing against you, who already have Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Bush indicted and convicted are the ones building an intellectual house of cards here.

you're a liberal lampooning the more extreme right wingers that comment here.

Either that or you need some basic help.

But again, Fitzgerald can simply find another statute that applies.   He can do anything he wants.

I needed that.

NEIL is the one arguing for a wait and see approach?  

In aggregate, it has been pointed out a lot -- but not in proportion to the number of breathless MSM stories that simply assume that the revelation of Ms. Plame's identity was itself a crime, regardless of knowledge or intent.  And whenever I debate liberals on the issue, I get blank stares when I point out the knowledge and intent elements.

Neil:  Wait and see if anyone gets indicted

flyerhawk:  Wait and see Rove get indicted

flyerhawk, I enjoy reading your posts.  You seem to be a reasonably left of center contributer.  The snark in your last post is beneath you.

I am not sure if any law was broken or not, but I do think your description is outrageous.   I also think it reeks of sexism.  From everything I have read, she had non-official cover, which took some time and money to set up, and when her cover was blown, so was the front cover the CIA set up.

you should go argue with those countless liberals because your point here is wrong.

By your reasoning Jonathan Pollard shouldn't have been convicted of a crime since he had no intention to harm US national security.

But it becomes tiring to be accused of pushing an agenda over and over when I wasn't.  I guess I was frustrated because Neil was putting words in my mouth and then you called him the voice of reason.  

I never once mentioned Karl Rove.  Not one time.  I did mention Scooter Libby merely because he seems, at least at this point, to be more of a focus of the investigation.  

I have no idea if anyone will be indicted.  We'll find out next week.  

This whole attack the media at every turn this is lost on me.   I watch and read a lot of news and I have heard a zillion times from a zillion different sources about how difficult it would be prove the most thrown about charge regarding naming (or outing) Plame.   That is why most pundits have been predicted for so long that we would see obstruction, or perjury charges IF we see anything.

I was wrong to try to use "Rove" as short hand for the center of all liberal attention in the Bush administration.

I'll give you that.

to leak the name of a CIA agent?

Get a grip people. This is much more serious than you think.

How does this "sound like watergate"?

It sounds like it in the way the Finger Of Shame appears to be gradually pointing higher and higher up the ladder.

I'm not saying it is, or even want to argue that.  But that was my understanding of the original poster's comment.

What happens if the CIA is wrong?

Just a question. Let your imagination run wild.

a covert agent.

There are a ton of people who work at the CIA whose employment is not a secret, and whose identity being known would not violate any laws.

Now if somebody else has already pointed this out, then ignore this (I am coming way late to this conversation, given that my job doesn't permit me time to peruse the internet or my favorite blogs during the day).

I wasn't the one who started the diary and I don't comment on this topic EXCEPT in diaries about this topic.  

What is Hilary's involvement? I missed that.

I certainly am NOT competent to even have an opinion about the merits of the case, but FYI, US News has just posted a highly speculative but quite detailed article about Cheney's possible resignation.

Anything that generates rumors about the VP resigning is THAT much of a scandal, my friend.

likely to come from the liberal quarter, if the "right" indictments don't come down.

If Fitzgerald comes down with indictments and has the goods to prove the crime, then whoever is charged should be convicted and punished.

Pollard wasn't convicted of "harming US national security." He was convicted of espionage. Normally, the motive of espionage is to make lots of money. Not in Pollard's case perhaps, but doing it for cash is not necessarily an intent to do the US harm either. But with espionage, the intent is always sinister. It wouldn't be sinister to tell the world that Porter Goss works for the CIA, for example. That's no doubt what Libby thought was the import of what he was saying. Revealing that someone who leaves their home every morning and drives to CIA headquarters might actually work there.

that intent is NOT necessary to convict someone of a crime, especially a crime involving national security.

It's only a breach of national security to leak the name of a covert agent.  Not everyone who works at the CIA is a spy and needs their identity kept secret.  

Thus, it's only illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent.

How are you not banned yet by the way?

Ah, now this is really fun.  Someone mentioned betting on the indictments?  Go check out Intrade, look at legal then indictments.  Personally I would be selling Rove short at this point.  Its all a huge craps shoot, especially in light of the basis for a crime.  If you have not read the friend of the court brief, I link to it and discuss here.  It is most enlightening.  And why doesn't intrade have a contract for Judy?  Does anyone else think maybe she hasn't been entirely open?  Especially in light of her refusing to reveal her sources to her own paper.  Can they bring charges against her?  Hahahahahhahaaaa...

This comment puzzles me:

"Normally, the motive of espionage is to make lots of money."

That sounds like the motive of capitalism as a useful economic governing theory. I thought the motive of espionage is to learn or obtain information for your use which you (whether "you" are a government, a company, or an individual) are not entitled to through legal means.

Now, it will be curious if the prosecutor takes this approach, since it could lead to an argument about who has committed espionage against whom, the administration against the CIA or vice-versa.

Should be interesting.

My understanding is that Valerie Plame Wilson was once undercover, but that she was brought back to the US & has worked as an analyst ever since. If so, that would potentially take her out of the statute that people have been focusing on.

As I understand it, her cover was blown by:

1. Aldrich Ames
   
   
2. the Soviets
   
   
3. the CIA (inadvertently sent secure documents to Cuba through unsecured channels)

Take a breath. Relax. And pull back on labelling everyone as "attacking" this or "attacking" that.

No one knows the facts. You don't. Flyerhawk doesn't. I don't. No ones outside of Fitzgerald's inner circle.

Enough with the shrill and hysterical cries about people painting the administration as criminal.

Just wait for Fitzgerald to speak publically. Enough with the speculation.

"What happens if the CIA is wrong?"

Do you maen "when?"  Haven't they been wrong more often than they've been right of late?

than truthful in this, and it bugs me how they get an automatic pass because they are reporters.

As if reporters would never do anything unethical (rathergate anyone).

In the end, Fitzgerald has done an excellent job of keeping the leaks at bay, and this is one situation where I think we just aren't going to know the details until it is all over.

But if I was a betting woman, I wouldn't bet on any indictment involving Rove.  I suspect he probably is in the clear wrt the outing stuff.  Perjury and other investigation related charges, who knows.

Good - now extend your remarks - you're heading in the right direction.

I've never understood why people are inclined to believe anonymous sources at all.  Either they're lying about what they're talking about, or they lied when they promised to keep secret whatever it is they're talking about.

In fact, isn't it a crime to reveal secret grand jury proceedings?  Who's going to believe a criminal?

Let's not loose sight of the fact that Plame has been riding a desk for years, and rolling in her convertible, hair blowing in the wind, from Wilson's house right through the gates of Langley.  007, she is not.  She was once a case officer, but it would seem that no one bothered to take her name off the list, even though she hasn't been an operator for years and years.  I seriously doubt that anyone even knew that she was once a covert operative, or at least I would hope no one would know that.  It's more likely that no one did till Wilson revealed it himself to extricate himself from his web of lies.  It is not a crime to say that someone works for the CIA, and this especially true when that person goes to a desk job in full public view every day.      

Let's not also loose sight that virtually every single sentence Wilson has uttered or written, and presented as fact, has turned out to be a bald faced lie.  The only thing that appears to be true is that the Nigerian Politicos he sipped tea with denied that they sold uranium oxide to an international criminal. When Seyni Kountche, in Niger, publicly says he would sell uranium to the devil, that has more weight in my book than the musings of one discredited former ambassador with a political bone to pick.  You believe who you want to believe, but this whole thing looks like political conniving to me.  

These people are watching too much West Wing and thinking it is true.

Depends how the law is written. The statute that the Plame case revolves around requires some proof of intent to do harm to national security. But, for example, if someone is sneaking nuclear plans out the back door of the DoE, the intent there is pretty clear and the laws reflect that clear intent.

I am pretty sure that a person testifying to the GJ (and I assume their lawyer) may share what they were asked, but beyond that, it is a crime.

That is the question.  There was no crime originally.  At least not according to the pointy headed liberal legals who wrote the brief trying to spring Judy back when she was mother Teresa.  This is a post modern investigation.  No crime, beyond fishing expedition, what a heart breaker if they can't get anybody.  Is Fitz going to turn into Starr?

how you know this.  We don't even know what statute(s) are relevant.  

Seems like I've seen studies or surveys of this issue.  As I recall, the motive for Americans who spy on their own government for the benefit of foreign governments is usually economic.  They're seldom paid very much at all.  In other countries, the motives frequently differ.  You are correct that the motive of the foreign government is usually to learn something useful.  However, that is seldom the motivation for the agent.

about a rumor that Cheney will resign.

Augustine asks if it seems far fetched to anyone else.

No more far fetched then a president resigning because of a burglary.

That said, I don't think Cheney will go, but it would be an opening for the Rice lovers out there.

Then this case gets more unusual. Money doesn't seem to be the motive for any of the players. It's seems purely political/power based.

Which presents either problems or opportunites for the prosecutor.

If motive is irrelevant (in other words, intent doesn't matter, only actions and results) then he goes one way.

If motive is crucial to making a case, he goes another.

It's curious how the various speculations wander all over the place depending on which "facts" seem important on any given day.

Ah - the beauty of the law.

'Hawk

Of course, you know BETTER THAN MOST HERE that many criminal statutes require either general or specific intent with is wholly separate from motive. Intent is WHAT one seeks to do, whereas MOTIVE is why.

And very few crimes are strict liability CRIMES. But, there ares some.

I'll find the statute on this case, but as I recall it dd have a SPECIFIC intent requirement, and if not, then GENERAL. Its a very tightly drawn statute that's hard to violate!

of intent. Motive is usually not a required element of a crime to be proven, however, I think it may be in this case. Intent to commit an intentional act must be proven. Motive evidence is usually presented to counter a defendant's denials.

Intent goes to WHAT one does and whether they meant to do it.

Motive goes to WHY, and is usually not a specific element of the crime.

While, personally I care about the motives - I don't think they are really relevant to the issue (not talking crime one way or the other here)  But anyone involved (as Bush said first) should be thrown out of the administration.

I take this kind of stuff very seriously.  Revelation of even a past operative compromises our ability to gather intelligence, and compromises anyone connected to Plame.  

If the information was leaked unintentionally, the leakers are still horribly incompetent and not fit to run our nation.  I live in the best country in the world and expect the best to run it.  If your not it - get out of office.

There are numerous possible code violations that could occur.  

Here's one that merely requires that a person intentionally disclose the name of a covert agent...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/i
v/sections/section_421.html

Disclosure of information by persons having or having had

        access to classified information that identifies covert agent

      Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified

    information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses

    any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not

    authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the

    information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the

    United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert

    agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be

    fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or

    both.

The issue here is lying about WMD, and the crime conspiring to obstruct justice to support those lies. From my perspective the evidence to support that allegation is so overwhelming, that substantiating those claims warrants minimal documentation. Only those in denial or uninterested in reviewing unclassified and public evidence can fail to see the obvious. We went to war when we did with the army we had because all that was about to be made as crystal clear at home as it is abroad.

As I expect indictments before October 28, I'll let Fitzpatrick provide the explanations. I suspect there will be no egg to wipe off of Mark's face. Has no one read even just the last paragraph on page 83 of the opinion jailing Miller?

"Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury's need for the reporters' evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants' sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court's orders compelling their testimony."

link to case in .pdf is http://tinyurl.com/6s8d6/

The underground super black back room cigar filled dim light word on Plame is that her name was on some Ames paperwork, and that as far as deep cover was concerned, '93 was the end.  Well at least thats what we know from a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof.  So it looks like we already sent away the real leaker.  And if you are just wanting to protect the CIA as if its some holy non-political institution of enlightenment, sit down.  Protecting ourselves means cleaning house, and thats one house that fights back.

when you don't like the message, you attack the messanger.

So should we just disband the CIA.

Do you think that would be a step in the right direction?

Yes, but not for these reasons. The CIA has been a waste of time, manpower, resources, and spy novels since basically the 1960s, with only a few redeeming events since. To me, the political war the CIA has waged against the Administration is just the icing on the cake.

is obviously in cahoots with the terrorists.

Why does the CIA hate America?

take you best assesment.

Does that mean we should stop with the terror alert system, since it relies on CIA info?

The discussion in the Amicus Curiae brief filed in connection with the Miller & Cooper is of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, esp. 50 USC Section 421 (see pp 5 - 7 of the brief).  According to the brief, to support a conviction under the act, the government must prove:

1. the US is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's relationship to the US;
   
   
2. the covert agent is an employee of the intelligence agency;
   
   
3. the covert agent has a relationship with the agency that is classified;
   
   
4. at the time of the disclosure, the covert agency was serving outside the US or had done so within the last 5 years;
   
   
5. the person who disclosed the covert agent's identity must be authorized to have access to classified information that identifies the covert agent;
   
   
6. the person disclosing the information knows the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;
   
   
7. the person disclosing the information knows that the information identifies the covert agent;
   
   
8. the disclosure is intentional; and
   
   
9. the identity of the covert agent is disclosed to a person who does not have authorization to receive such information.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm honestly not informed enough to understand what you are talking about.  

The only point I did understand was about protecting the CIA, I never intended to put it on some pedestal.  But I just can't stomach the revelation of one of our countries operatives, even if I think the CIA is a hack political tool (which I do).  The fact that the CIA is a bunch of political hacks doesn't minimize the efforts of sincere individuals who are part of that system.  And I have a real hard time believing the Wilson's had an  anti-bush agenda(he voted for him in 2000).   Wilson probably has an anti-bush motivation now - but I find it hard to blame him for it.

I will also confess - I don't think Rove, Libby or Cheney are stupid.  I believe it was entirely intentional and that kind of pettiness for political cover is not what I expect of any administration.  In their own words this was about damage control - not outing a CIA operative.  Sorry, but that is disgusting in my book.  

But the statutes which seem to be involved here are all very, very specific.  At this juncture, it appears that the relevant statues are the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, as well as the pertinent statutes involving obstruction of justice & perjury.  Fitzgerald could throw in a few others, but these seem to be the most likely.

The discussion changes significantly when you apply what little we actually now know to the specific statutes.

I had only read the Amici, but lo and behold in the actual proceeding, a argument implying the protection of blogs.  Actually, the "stereotypical blogger" in his or her respective pajamas.  And conspiracy galore, a official could set up a blog in "three or four minutes" and leak information with the full protection of the first amendment.  Its pdf page 29, proceeding page 6, second paragraph.  Thanks for the link.

Not the espionage act, and the perjury and obstruction acts are fairly broad as well. The IIPA has enough conditions that it is limited to very specific application.

Not that there's anything better or worse about narrow or wide statutory language, but it's a bit laughable to think of espionage involved in this case. Secret identities, maybe sorta. Important issues, for sure. Fundamental political disagreements, absolutely.

Any crimes committed are peripheral and of seconday intent, if at all.

Then again, what was Martha Stewart convicted of?

Your imagination can do better than that.

Does the defense department want to take over intelligence gathering? Should it want to? Should it?

"Here's one that merely requires that a person intentionally disclose the name of a covert agent..."

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 requires far, far more than that to support a conviction.

50 USC Section 421 requires:

1. having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent
   
   
2. intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent
   

3)to any individual not authorized to receive classified information

4. knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent
   
   
5. and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

The term "covert agent" is defined in Subsection 426(4):

1. an employee or former employee
   
   
2. whose identity is classified
   
   
3. who is serving outside the US or has done so in the last 5 years
   
   
4. who resides & acts outside the US or in counterintelligence or counterterrorism

Under Subsection 426(1)"classified information" means information which is clearly marked as classified (etc.)

See the discussion at pp 5-7 of the Amicus Curiae brief:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%
20032305%20(Final).PDF

(sorry if the link doesn't work)

DoD responsible?

I mean in the end, We should all care about the effectiveness of our intelligence gathering abilities. It really is a matter of National Security.

Especially in these times.

Point me to where I said that, funny boy. Or, contribute something substantive. Your choice.

To whom is the CIA responsible? Is it the same answer as the DoD? Should it be? Why does it seem not to be?

How about the FBI?

How many federal employees have been fired since 9/11? Any? Michael Brown?

First I will agree with you, then rip on your boy Wilson.  It is disgusting.  Politics is always disgusting from one side to the other.  If premeditated, i.e. Rove spent the night in the secret bunker calculating how to rip a whole in the CIA and Wilson, and came up with this, it would be very disgusting.  But probably not illegal.  Conversely, I don't think that was the case because they would have had much more involvement, and it would have been a better plan.  As Wilson claims his whole life has changed, but not because his wife got a staged spread in Vanity Fair.  It changed with the book deal.  And the anti-Bush campaign tour.  As far as him voting for Bush, you think he liked the state dept. under Clinton?  He is a self serving political whore now, but probably not by choice.  And in one sense it is about WMD.  The CIA was very remiss,  so was just about everyone.  They all were in CYA mode.  But Wilson, for some reason, snapped.  He did sloppy work as an ambassador, then created a firestorm which he made a fortune out of.  Not that there shouldn't be a debate on WMD inteligence, or lack of it.  But, I will quote you here, "I believe it was entirely intentional and the kind of pettiness for political cover", only I assign that bit to your boy Joe.  It is disgusting.

That recitation seems to be why all speculative comment now indicates that the IIPA is the least likely law to serve as the basis for any indictment.

However, there's plenty of cause for concern in the other possibilities.

Where there WMD allegedly involved in Watergate? I don't recall that.

a Mexican soap opera.  I quit!

a problem that needs to be addressed, don't you!

We can't have incompetent people in such important capacities!

Cheney's indictment is a scary prospect. While I'd love to see a potential 2008 candidate sitting in that VP slot, it surely would be huge blow to the Republican power.

I do like Condi though :)

There were!  If you mean the Women Meant for Democrats as a weapon.   And speaking of Watergate, our girl Judy just gave out a first amendment award to Deep Throat, small world.

I tried to post it last night in Mark I's diary.

Google - Amicus Brief Judith Miller - and follow the link provided for bakerlaw.com as posted in this parent.

Wilson thought that Bush would be a good Saudi shill like him and his fellow compatriots at the Middle East Institute.

That said I don't think we can ever take anyone's word regarding who they voted for without corroborating campaign contribution information.

I think it has its own agenda, and has no problems stabbing any administration in the back if it doesn't toot to its tune.

So, yeah, let's ditch the whole place.

would be more like this:

It wasn't the "crime" (if there indeed was one), it was the cover-up.

What I see happening is this:  indictments will be handed down.  Against Libby for certain, but there's an outside chance that indictments might also come down against Karl Rove.

Not for outing a CIA agent.

Not for obstruction of justice.

But for perjury.

Not perjury about covering up a "crime," but perjury in actively misleading Fitzgerald and the grand jury.

I believe the reason for these indictments won't be the CIA or Plame or anything like that, I believe it will be over nothing more than the "culture of secrecy" that the White House practices literally backfiring.

Said people may have lied because they felt that they didn't HAVE to divulge that information.

So, instead of answering questions that very well may have exonerated them, they instead lied.

And bang, perjury.

Here's what we know:

1. DC is a small town. Everyone is married to someone else (Cooper to Grunewald, herself a big-wig's daughter; Plame to Wilson, etc) and is involved in various nepotistic conflict of interest issues all around. Including Bolton's former associate who worked with Plame early on and then Cheney's staff.

So that answers how people knew about Plame being Wilson's wife and at CIA. One of her former workplace people remembered her. If she was working at an analyst spot (highly likely) given Bolton's assistant career path there was no way she could be covert. Covert CIA ops don't have jobs in CIA analyst positions.

2. The heart of the real conflict (a leak war between Wilson/CIA and the WH) is based on the small-town-ness of the whole social scene. It's like the politics of a small town university writ large. Wilson/CIA wanted to fix the blame on Bush and vice-versa over WMD predictions being spectacularly wrong.
   
3. Saudi money is involved. Wilson works for the Middle East Institute which is a Saudi front/lobbying group. Much of the opposition to Bush in the CIA comes from the Saudi aligned group who want the status quo ante because that's where the future money is (Saudis hire ex Govt folks for big bucks).
   
4. Wilson is a VERY strange person. He never mentioned supporting evidence in his interviews/op-eds (if only to knock them down) about the Iraq trade delegation's discussion with Niger's PM. Nor could he have seen the forged documents