DSK wrote:
Curtis CCR wrote:
What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this
leak?


Does it matter?

Yes it does.

If she was *not* working *overseas* as a *covert* operative in the
previous five years then it may not have been a crime to disclose her
indentity. It seems that most people leave this question out of the
discussion when they say "its a crime to disclose... blah blah blah..."

Those asking the question seem to think she was working as an
intelligence analyst of some type and having babies in the U.S. during
the time in question. (Employment with the CIA can hardly be called
covert if you are driving to work at Langley everyday.)

Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not.

Exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a Federal crime...
and rightly so.

Plame was exposed by somebody close to the White House (most likely Karl
Rove himself) to try & make some cheap political points. And I bet the
reporters are going to be the only ones punished.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:


Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not.


While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime
committed, why is a reporter going to jail?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:


Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not.


While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime
committed, why is a reporter going to jail?

Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she
refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should
have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

Thank you for the link. There are not very many articles out there
asking these questions.

And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
ups.com...


thunder wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:


Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not.


While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime
committed, why is a reporter going to jail?

Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she
refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should
have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

Thank you for the link. There are not very many articles out there
asking these questions.

And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career?

She was a NOC agent, she doesn't have a "career" with the CIA. Do a little
research.

Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"

Considering the fact that the people that might most be interested in her
agent status ALREADY knew, her husband publicizing the fact that someone in
the current administration revealed her identity as an agent doesn't make
ANY difference. The fact that this very serious national security crime has
been almost ignored by the mainstream media is rather troubling, I would
venture the guess that this would be Wilson's primary motivation for
publicizing it.

John Cairns

John Cairns wrote:
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message

Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"

Considering the fact that the people that might most be interested in her
agent status ALREADY knew, her husband publicizing the fact that someone in
the current administration revealed her identity as an agent doesn't make
ANY difference. The fact that this very serious national security crime has
been almost ignored by the mainstream media is rather troubling, I would
venture the guess that this would be Wilson's primary motivation for
publicizing it.

A host of people alledgedly knew she worked for the CIA. It has been
reported that it was common knowledge in D.C. "cocktail circuit" that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lot's of people knew PRIOR to the
White House's alledged leak. But nobody talked much about it because
it wasn't important. This goes to another element of the definition of
covert agent - the government needs to be taking step to keep her
identity secret.

This story is not being ignored by the mainstream media. So you even
have that fact wrong. But there are very few *facts* available for the
media to report. One fact that you still cannot prove is that a even a
misdemeanor, let alone a "serious national security crime" has been
committed.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:22:16 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:


A host of people alledgedly knew she worked for the CIA. It has been
reported that it was common knowledge in D.C. "cocktail circuit" that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lot's of people knew PRIOR to the White
House's alledged leak. But nobody talked much about it because it wasn't
important. This goes to another element of the definition of covert agent
- the government needs to be taking step to keep her identity secret.

You seem to be concentrating on the Intelligence Identities Protection
Act. However, the prosecutor could be using the much broader Espionage
Act, similar to Reagan's use of it against Samuel Morison.

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/sc.../20030926.html

While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime
committed, why is a reporter going to jail?


For aiding & abetting the enemy (the Democrats).

Curtis CCR wrote:
Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she
refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should
have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime.


Really? What of the 5th Amendment? I thought that a US citizen had the
right to not testify. I guess it's just another one of those rights they
taught us about in school, but they were kidding...


And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"


I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for
himself

However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the
situation. It's like the Halliburton price-gouging & fraud &
non-performance... small back-page items in the news at best. And you
hear all the time about the supposed 'liberal biased media.'

DSK

DSK wrote:
While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime
committed, why is a reporter going to jail?


For aiding & abetting the enemy (the Democrats).

Curtis CCR wrote:
Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she
refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should
have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime.


Really? What of the 5th Amendment? I thought that a US citizen had the
right to not testify. I guess it's just another one of those rights they
taught us about in school, but they were kidding...

You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*. People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.

And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"


I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for
himself

However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the
situation.

There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the
news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a
couple of facts about the case.

We still don't know if a crime was committed.

Curtis CCR wrote:
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.

Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.


And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?



And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"


I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for
himself

However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the
situation.


There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the
news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a
couple of facts about the case.

We still don't know if a crime was committed.


Possibly, but it seems pretty likely that one was.

One of the reasons I distrust the Bush Administration so much is their
overwhelming urge towards secrecy.
http://www.archivists.org/news/secrecyorder.asp
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm
Now, who needs a reminder on what the Bible tells us about those who
hateth the light?


DSK

DSK wrote:
Curtis CCR wrote:
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.

Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.

Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents. Documents can be
entered into evidence - They are not testitmony. (Before some wise-ass
tries to bring up transcripts from depositions, those are different
kinds of documents).


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.

And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?

Let me see if I have the correct score here.

ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information she says
she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any
one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting
in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight -
there is no fifth ammendment issue here.

And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court
is quite sound.

And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"


I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for
himself

However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the
situation.


There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the
news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a
couple of facts about the case.

We still don't know if a crime was committed.

Possibly, but it seems pretty likely that one was.

You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up
in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to
fall one way or another. Please list what verified facts you have that
show a crime was committed. We don't know if this special prosecutor
is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the
bottom what will prove to be a political mess.