House Will Hold Plame Hearings

[SezMe]

First, I don't understand why Plame's role in her husband's trip to Niger is important. Who cares? He had the chops for the job so it was reasonable that he be sent. Can you explain this to me.

Waxman, in his opening statement today, took pains to explain that the CIA had cleared every word he spoke, and confirmed every word of this statement:

"Ms. Wilson was undercover...Ms. Wilson's employment status was covert...Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA...Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA...It is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States."

I'll take that over Toensing's assertion.

But no matter, what is important is that sources we probably spent decades developing were trashed by outing Plame. And the work she was doing was directly relevant to the most pressing international issue the whole world faces today. Remember the only point of agreement between Kerry and Bush in one of the debates was that nuclear weapons proliferation was one of the greatest threats the world faces.

So we're less secure because of this fiasco. IMO some folks whose offices are in the White House should be in the Big House. And Novak should be there doing their laundry...by hand.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, so now the law is poorly written?

Great reply. I already said it was disgraceful, perhaps you missed that part.

I do love it how the Senate committee said Plame recommended her husband to be sent to Niger, but Valerie denies that.

As I read the language in the law, if it was within five years, the cover was required to be protected, and thus in need of protection via non revelation.

DR

 

[Azure]

I agree Sez.

I don't think it matters anymore whether she was covert or not, what matters is that someone outed a CIA agent.

No CIA agent should be outed, ever.

Ever. Not even the janitors.

 

[Daylight]

From the testimony it appears the Bush Administration compromised an American asset(s) during a time of war. Which means there are possibly one or more traitors within the Bush Administration.

Treason during a time of war doesn't get you a trip to the Big House. So it will be interesting to see how far the congressional investigation goes before a “compromise” is worked out.

 

[SezMe]

From the testimony it appears the Bush Administration compromised an American asset(s) during a time of war. Which means there are possibly one or more traitors within the Bush Administration.

Treason during a time of war doesn't get you a trip to the Big House. So it will be interesting to see how far the congressional investigation goes before a “compromise” is worked out.

My bold. I would replace the bolded word with "should". If that is not what you meant to imply, please expand on your post.

 

[varwoche]

http://voanews.com/english/2007-03-16-voa31.cfm

Maybe thats [Plame not covert] why Fitzgerald couldn't charge anyone for outing her.

I'm not a lawyer however I think that Toensing (a constant shill and a half) is wrong. From the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

(4) The term "covert agent" means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm not a lawyer however I think that Toensing (a constant shill and a half) is wrong. From the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

Toensing's quibble was that while Plame had undertaken missions outside the US as late as 2002, she was not "stationed" there, therefore she was not "covert under the act".

In fact, Plame had been stationed in DC to raise her small children, then was going to rotate back overseas.

So if Toensing is not lying, then the quibble is over a loophole in the law, hence it's poorly written. And if Toensing was in fact part of the group who wrote the law, I can see why it was poorly written.

 

[pgwenthold]

Once again, I remind everyone that George Bush claimed that in his administration, they would not do just what it is technically legal, but do what's right, as well.

So Mr. President, why all the splitting of hairs over whether she was "technically" covered by the law? Outing a CIA agent is wrong.

Moreover, back in 2003 or whenever when this story broke, recall how the President claimed that if anyone had illegally outed a CIA agent, they would be taken care of? Moreover, he promised to investigate the matter to determine if anyone in the White House was responsible.

Of course, we learned yesterday that the White House hasn't done any investigation of any sort, 3 years later.

 

[Daylight]

My bold. I would replace the bolded word with "should". If that is not what you meant to imply, please expand on your post.

During time of war the punishment for treason is death. Personally I don’t think it would come to that since all the politicians have skeletons so a compromise would occur. For those of us who are not aristocrats, we still get death.

 

[varwoche]

Toensing's quibble was that while Plame had undertaken missions outside the US as late as 2002, she was not "stationed" there, therefore she was not "covert under the act".

If this is what Toensing's quibble is about, it seems to me the quibble lacks merit, and this is just more of her unabashed shilling. Here again is the definition from the act, with blue text added:

(4) The term "covert agent" means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency [check] or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information [check], and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States [check]; or...

 

[pgwenthold]

Quibbles aside, the point of the law is pretty darn clear. If we have agents going outside the country undercover, their status as agents has to be protected if they are to do anything useful.

No one who cares about national security and the work of our intelligence agencies would ever try to spin this any other way.

 

[Azure]

During time of war the punishment for treason is death. Personally I don’t think it would come to that since all the politicians have skeletons so a compromise would occur. For those of us who are not aristocrats, we still get death.

Oh but wait, I thought the US didn't declare war on anyone yet...

So say certain people on this forum.

 

[jimtron]

It would have been nice if the Bush Administration and the right wing pundits argued against the merits of Wilson's criticisms (ie, the NYT op ed piece) instead of resorting to desperate, ridiculous measures (outing Plame to smear Wilson). In most of the articles about Libby/Plame/Wilson, Wilson gets mentioned as a Bush critic, which might seem like he's just some partisan crank. But I don't see how anyone can argue that Wilson didn't do the right thing. He found the Niger yellowcake claim to be bogus, yet the Bush team continued to cite it. Shouldn't any American, left or right, call their government on this kind of duplicity?