It says so right here. Of course, this was obvious all along, so I don't think that making it additionally obvious will change the behavior of anyone in the conservative parallel universe.
« Tit for Double-Tat | Main | The View From My Window »
Plame Was Covert
30 May 2007 08:56 am
Comments (74)
Why would it be un-obvious? Every damn person with a view of the relevant facts who wasn't looking at actual jail time said that she was covert.
So should Robert Novak go to jail for revealing her covert status?
Sk
I think it was extremely un-obvious up until now.
It's obvious, because the CIA has been saying that she was covert since day 1 of the scandal. Unless you are right wingnutty enough to see the CIA as full of leftist partisans . . .
"Why would it be un-obvious? Every damn person with a view of the relevant facts who wasn't looking at actual jail time said that she was covert."
It was obvious in terms of the colloquial use of the word "covert".
But the IIPA has a very strict definition of the word "covert" that made it very debatable about whether or not Plame fit the definition, specifically in terms of when she was posted overseas.
Fitzgerald has rendered an impartial judgment now, but prior to that, I think a reasonable observer would have had doubts about whether or not Plame met the IIPA definition of "covert".
Fitzgerald. The judge. The CIA.
None of them were speaking colloquially.
"The CIA."
The CIA's definition of covert is not the same as the IIPA's definition of covert.
My point here really isn't that complicated, folks.
Did Plame know she was covert? It would seem letting her husband write a politically motivated NY-Times op/ed about a CIA trip for which she recommended him might be the sort of thing a covert agent would avoid. That and getting on the cover of Vanity Fair.
Oh dear, the oafish yglesias actually seems to believe some significant new information has been revealed.
The newly released document amounts to simply a repetition of the CIA's longstanding position that they considered her covert. The relevant legal question was always whether she qualified for protection under the intelligence identities protection act. If you remember, though given your record of ignorance it would not surprise me if you never heard it in the first place, the co-author of that act testified that plame was not covered by it.
You're being disingenuous. When the CIA went to get someone to investigate the violation of the IIPA they most certainly were using the IIPA definition. They wouldn't have sought it otherwise. When other people refer to CIA covert operatives -- the CIA's own comments are rarer than never -- they get colloquial, but the relevant, knowledgeable parties to the case -- Fitzgerald, the judge, the CIA in seeking the investigation -- all used the relevant definition regarding Plame.
"The newly released document amounts to simply a repetition of the CIA's longstanding position that they considered her covert. The relevant legal question was always whether she qualified for protection under the intelligence identities protection act."
You've got it wrong.
The new revelation is that Republican prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald determined that Plame was indeed covert under the IIPA.
Fitzgerald has rendered an impartial judgment now, but prior to that, I think a reasonable observer would have had doubts about whether or not Plame met the IIPA definition of "covert".
Fitzgerald has been saying the same thing for years. The only thing that's changed is that he's shown us a little of the evidence now.
But unless you were part of the wingnut brigade that thinks of Fitzgerald as the second coming of DA Nifong, you already knew he wouldn't make this claim without a solid factual basis to support it.
See, just as one example, this article from February 2006.
Of course, if you think it makes a big difference whether Plame worked overseas within the last five years, you've already bought into the right-wing framing that says unless the technical terms of the IIPA were violated, there's somehow nothing wrong with disclosing the classified identity of a CIA operative.
"You're being disingenuous. When the CIA went to get someone to investigate the violation of the IIPA they most certainly were using the IIPA definition."
I'm not being disingenuous in the least.
The IIPA definition of covert is considerably stricter than the CIA definition of covert. There are undeniably folks who the CIA considers covert that the IIPA does not consider covert.
And whatever the CIA's original rationale for seeking the referral, for anyone using publicly available information, the question of whether or not Plame met the IIPA definition of covert was un-obvious until Fitzgerald's current statement.
"Of course, if you think it makes a big difference whether Plame worked overseas within the last five years, you've already bought into the right-wing framing that says unless the technical terms of the IIPA were violated, there's somehow nothing wrong with disclosing the classified identity of a CIA operative."
Maybe that's what I'm saying. Or maybe you just have the reading comprehension skills of a fifth grader.
The new revelation is that Republican prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald determined that Plame was indeed covert under the IIPA.
I'm not so sure that's right, Petey. It's unclear what that filing is -- whether it was written by the CIA or by Fitzgerald. The version of it floating out there simply says it's "Exhibit A" but doesn't say what to (if you find the document to which it was attached -- probably an attorney's affidavit of some kind -- that would tell us what the provenance of that document is). Given that its typeface is of a different sort than Fitz uses in his briefs, I'm inclined to believe that it's from the CIA itself, but I could easily be wrong. I'd like to see the entire filing.
Fred, your statement is relevant how? Is this some kind of, "If she didn't want to be outed, she shouldn't have had her husband point out that Bush lied?" Is that kind of like the, "she shouldn't have been dressed like that" argument?
Also, what is it with the unhinged screaming and yelling from right wingers about how much they hate Joe Wilson and how Plame was "just a clerk"? Is this some kind of Cheney-envy?
Maybe that's what I'm saying. Or maybe you just have the reading comprehension skills of a fifth grader.
No, that's not what you're saying. That's what the right-wingers have been saying all along in pushing the "IIPA definition is all that matters" argument, and by treating it as a major revelation that Plame worked outside the country in the last five years, you buy into this frame. That doesn't mean you think the outing would have been okay otherwise; it just means you don't even realize that you're engaging the wingnuts on their own turf. All along, the debate over what should have been a slam-dunk despicable act has been hijacked by people bickering about the murky question of whether Plame met the IIPA definition.
That said, it's funny how you lash out at the last paragraph of my post, but say nothing about my link which establishes that you're flat wrong to say "the question of whether or not Plame met the IIPA definition of covert was un-obvious until Fitzgerald's current statement." Flat wrong.
Petey, your position is, frankly, ridiculous. The CIA referred this mess to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The CIA is not unfamiliar with the IIAP. It is therefore not surprising to find that she had, in fact, been out of the country on covert missions during the relevant time period.
Stop making shit up in a deperate attempt to defend the administration.
"All along, the debate over what should have been a slam-dunk despicable act has been hijacked by people bickering about the murky question of whether Plame met the IIPA definition."
So on the day that Fitzgerald notes that Plame was covert under the IIPA, noting that is buying into right-wing frames?
Whatever, dude. You've got more serious analytical problems going on than just reading comprehension, apparently.
"That's what the right-wingers have been saying all along in pushing the "IIPA definition is all that matters" argument"
Well steve, if you are trying to determine whether the IIPA has been violated then the substance of the IIPA seems pretty important to me. No doubt youd have prefered to have defined covert in whatever way would have secured the conviction of the most republicans but there we go.
At the risk of encouraging future contrarian outbursts from Petey... he nailed this one.
The CIA has been saying all along that she was a covert operative, but the IIPA has a very strict definition of covert, and the wingnuts have been braying from day one that she "obviously" didn't meet the requirements. It's actually quite the bombshell to verify that she was still regularly going overseas undercover.
I had concluded that Fitzgerald failed to prosecute anyone for the original leak on the grounds that Plame didn't meet the requirements. Apparently not. He must have decided he couldn't win a conviction in court, perhaps because Novak's original source was Armitage--who had no obvious motive other than gossip.
"He must have decided he couldn't win a conviction in court, perhaps because Novak's original source was Armitage--who had no obvious motive other than gossip."
I like Drum's reasoning better:
That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case. That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels, something the leakers could have used in their defense at trial.
Petey isn't being disingenuous. But he's wrong. It was obvious all along. rea gets it right - when the CIA referred the Plame matter to Justice, that was a legal referral. They would not have done that if they believed Plame only fit the colloquial definition of the term and not the statutory definition. The CIA has an office of legal counsel.
Those other trolls, however, are being disingenuous of course. Fred's 10:28 post might be the stupidest thing ever written on this site, and that's saying a lot. It approaches Tom Maguire-stupidity levels.
Whatever, dude. You've got more serious analytical problems going on than just reading comprehension, apparently.
Still unable to deal with the fact that you were flat wrong in saying that "the question of whether or not Plame met the IIPA definition of covert was un-obvious until Fitzgerald's current statement," I see.
Well steve, if you are trying to determine whether the IIPA has been violated then the substance of the IIPA seems pretty important to me.
Sure. But I don't think the issue of whether the IIPA was violated has ever been a dispositive point. It's the right-wingers who want to have that fight, because they saw it as the one fight they could win.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Plame was not "covert" under the IIPA. What would that have to do with the issue of whether it was wrong to disclose her identity, or whether a criminal act was committed thereby? There's nothing in the IIPA that says "this is the one and only statute that might apply to the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity."
"when the CIA referred the Plame matter to Justice, that was a legal referral."
If I were the CIA, I'd make a legal referral in cases where covertness was debatable.
but petey, there is another reading that has certainly struck many of us as "obvious," namely, that is was "obvious" that plame was covert by the definition of the IIPA (because, as rea points out, the cia doesn't just randomly request investigations) but that the defintion of the crime in the IIPA is somewhat complex and not easy to meet.
given that fitzgerald's original remarks at the time of libby's indictment concerned themselves with throwing sand in the ump's eyes (ok, it was a baseball metaphor, and maybe petey doesn't follow baseball), it always looked "obvious" to me that there was no question that plame was covert, but there was a question as to whether a conviction could be obtained under the IIPA.
LaFollette, if conservatives were that cautious, then yes, they would have stuck to the technical definitions of the IIPA. Ambitious as they are, however, they repeated claimed that Plame was just a non-undercover desk clerk for the CIA who was not in any way covert. I think it was pretty likely all along that she was covert under the law, but the biggest stumbling block was probably the issue of intent.
If I were the CIA, I'd make a legal referral in cases where covertness was debatable.
If I were the CIA I'd look under beds for commies. I'd put yodelers into the NYC subway tunnels. I'd send pretty girls in flowery dresses to all the meetings between our ambassadors and bad guys. I'd order out agents to dress in a clean cut, All-American way because there's no substitute for neatness and order. I'd ...
Hell.
What's the use?
It's actually quite the bombshell to verify that she was still regularly going overseas undercover.
But this isn't news. Just click the link. The supporting documents are news, but Fitzgerald has been taking this position all along.
As the link spells out, the missing element of an IIPA charge was not any of the technical BS about Plame's employment, but the requirement that the leakers must have KNOWN about her status prior to the disclosure. Fitzgerald ultimately found this too difficult to prove, in part due to Libby's perjury.
But to tell you the truth, the idea that maybe Plame didn't fit the technical criteria of the statute has been implausible from this lawyer's perspective since the beginning. Verifying that Plame had traveled overseas on business during the last five years is something that would take a prosecutor five minutes during his first day on the job. From the fact that Fitzgerald continued to investigate potential violations of the IIPA - something we knew he was doing from the filings in connection with the Judy Miller subpoena, among other things - it was obvious that unless Fitzgerald was completely incompetent, all the easy-to-verify technical criteria had already been met. You don't spend years on a murder investigation if you find out on day one that no one died.
You wouldn't make a legal referral in cases where covertness was debatable if you were the CIA, Jeffery Davis?
Cops arrest folks all the time in situations where the legal case against them is not a 100% sure thing.
-----
Lotta folks on this thread who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer...
Lotta folks on this thread who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer...
I wonder if one of those guys would be the fellow who maintains
for anyone using publicly available information, the question of whether or not Plame met the IIPA definition of covert was un-obvious until Fitzgerald's current statement.
when an article from February 2006 says quite plainly
But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
Not the sharpest knife, to be sure...
Lotta folks on this thread who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer...
More than you'd suspect.
The CIA isn't a cop on a beat.
The CIA had all the relevant information.
None of the principle actors in this investigation ever gave any hint that there was a question of her covertness or of the applicability of the statute.
What I suspect is that you, Petey, believed the wingnut howls and that is your criterion for "obviousness."
Petey writes that an allegation by the prosecutor - of all people, the prosecutor! - is an "impartial judgement" about whether Plame was covert. Too funny. The prosecutor as impartial! What even will the wingers thibk of next?
What is clear from this filing is that the Libby defenders have really gotten under Fitz's skin. We know that the judge has ruled that it is not relevant to the case whather Plame was covert. And, we all know by now that the actual leakers to Novak were not prosecuted under the IIPA, and that Libby's lies could not possibly have made a difference in whether Fitz could show that Armitage violated the IIPA. So what we have here is a post hoc attempt to rehabilitate Fitz's badly damaged reputation as a Nifong-like prosecutor run amok.
We thank our sponsors for that daily dispatch from the Gamma Quadrant.
"Petey writes that an allegation by the prosecutor - of all people, the prosecutor! - is an "impartial judgement" about whether Plame was covert. Too funny. The prosecutor as impartial!"
The prosecutor in this politically charged case is a lifelong Republican who most reality-based folks of both parties regard as a straight-shooter.
Given that the case will never come to trial, Fitzgerald's conclusions here are the best impartial evidence we're ever going to have as to whether or not Plame was covert under the IIPA standard.
And covert she was.
"So what we have here is a post hoc attempt to rehabilitate Fitz's badly damaged reputation as a Nifong-like prosecutor run amok."
No one will ever accuse you of being reality-based, Al.
Petey, quit acting like a cornered animal. We're all aware of the adage that if neither the facts or law are on your side, you bang on the table. You're not going to fool anyone by turning up the rhetoric.
No, the CIA would not make a referral if covertness was debatable. That is because the CIA, not the DOJ, is the agency that was best able to determine Plame's covertness. It had no reason to defer to the DOJ's expertise on that issue.
The CIA would make a referral if certain other elements of the IIPA were debatable, but not that one.
And, we all know by now that the actual leakers to Novak were not prosecuted under the IIPA, and that Libby's lies could not possibly have made a difference in whether Fitz could show that Armitage violated the IIPA.
Do you guys seriously not realize how instantly credibility-destroying it is to behave like Armitage was the only leaker?
In any event, the missing element of an IIPA charge was a showing that the leakers had actual knowledge of Plame's covert status. So it's quite clear that Libby, by lying about how and where he heard about Plame, impeded Fitzgerald's ability to determine whether any of the leakers (including Rove, Libby, and Armitage) had such knowledge.
Obviously, that last comment refers to Petey's prior posts. Petey is right vis-a-vis Al of course.
"No, the CIA would not make a referral if covertness was debatable"
As previously stated, lotta folks on this thread who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer...
No, the CIA would not make a referral if covertness was debatable. That is because the CIA, not the DOJ, is the agency that was best able to determine Plame's covertness.
I'm going to take Petey's side on this limited issue.
Yes, the CIA probably would not make a referral under the IIPA if it knew for a fact that the requirements of the IIPA could not be met (although it's at least possible that the agency might stick up for its employees just to make a point).
But as far as I know, the referral letter itself has never been publicly disclosed. It's rather unlikely, in my experience, that the letter specifically said "go investigate whether the IIPA was violated." More likely, it said "here are the facts, now go determine whether anyone can be charged with a crime." That crime wouldn't have to be the IIPA.
It's for the DOJ, not the CIA, to determine what laws might have been violated. So you could plausibly construct a scenario in which the CIA knows, for example, that Plame hasn't worked outside the country within the past five years, but they still view her employment as classified and want to see if the leaker can be punished via any other statute.
Realistically, until we see the text of the referral letter itself, the fact that a referral was made doesn't really tell us that the CIA believed Plame met the criteria of the IIPA. What it DOES tell us, although Al and his legions will surely deny it, is that Plame was hardly a well-known desk jockey who was Covert In Name Only.
However, you have to keep in mind that in Wingnut World, the CIA is an actively partisan organization, and when I say partisan, I mean anti-Bush. So to them, once you accept the premise that the CIA would do anything to hurt the administration, it becomes completely plausible that they would have made a criminal referral without any basis in fact, just to try and embarass the administration. At which point, enter Patrick Fitzgerald the Democrat mole, etc. So when you and I agree that the CIA referral proves something, understand that it only proves something if you accept the premise that the CIA generally acts in good faith.
If I were the CIA, I'd make a legal referral in cases where covertness was debatable.
You think it's f---ing debatable, from the perspectve of the CIA, whether she's been out of the country undercover within the preceeding 5 years ? You think the CIA doesn't keep records, or something? Christ, what a loon . . .
Quit evading the questions that have been put to you Petey. Here are the questions you need to answer.
1. What is the definition of covertness under the IIPA?
2. Is this definition legally ambiguous in any way?
3. What information would the CIA be in possesion of, as to the facts necessary for a determination of covertness as defined above?
4. Under what circumstances could the CIA find one of its agents' covertness to be debatable?
5. Would the CIA make a referral under such circumstances?
This time, you will either answer the questions or admit that you were wrong or both. Lame insults are not going to cut it.
Is the following summary correct?
Valerie Plame was a covert agent.
Richard Armitage revealed Plame's status to Robert Novak.
Robert Novak wrote this fact.
Several newspapers published it.
Thus, Scooter Libby/right wing operatives should go to prison.
Sk
Steve: Yes, the CIA would make a referral if certain elements of guilt under the IIPA were debatable (as I mentioned in my previous comment). But not this one, for the reasons that rea just alluded to.
BTW, Petey. You are flat wrong that Fitz is a Republican. He said specifically at his first press conference that he is not partisan and not registered as part of a party.
Let's face it, this is a dubious filing to attempt to rehabilitate his Nifong-like persona, based on the EXTREMELY dubious idea that one can be covert based on a couple of business trips per year. We all know why he is making the charge NOW, when the trial's over and the issue has already been deemed irrelevant - because if he had brought this far fetched theory into a proceeding where it mattered, he'd be laughed out of court.
By the way, just to dispel the notion (see Al's ravings, for example) that Plame's status as covert is not relevant and that Fitzgerald just put this in because Libby is getting under his skin, read Fitzgerald's sentencing guidelines calculation memo (which is the memo to which the "Exhibit A" -- the unclassified summary of Plame's CIA employment history -- is attached). It makes it clear that the sentencing guidelines for obstruction (and perhaps perjury, too, I didn't read it that closely) require cross-reference to the guidelines for the offense the investigation of which the defendant sought to obstruct. So whether there was a legitimate IIPA investigation here, while not relevant to Scooter's conviction, is highly relevant to his sentencing, and so whether Plame was "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA is also highly relevant.
By the way, that sentencing guidelines calculation memo doesn't say where that unclassified summary ("Exhibit A") came from, but it certainly seems most likely to me that it came from the CIA -- perhaps as part of their initial referral memo.
Sk,
Is the following summary correct?
NO!
You left out the fact that Scooter Libby was actively pushing the story to reporters.
Um, no, JP. Covert is a term in a criminal statute. The people that make the judgements about whether someone meets the elements of a criminal statute would be the prosecutors, not the CIA.
"Quit evading the questions that have been put to you Petey. Here are the questions you need to answer."
Look. I understand it's not easy to not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Every time you need to figure something out, you have to scrunch up your forehead to the point where you start inducing permanent wrinkles. You're always getting confused about which foods call for sugar and which foods call for salt.
But don't take your confusion out on me. You already have my sympathy.
Let's face it, this is a dubious filing to attempt to rehabilitate his Nifong-like persona, based on the EXTREMELY dubious idea that one can be covert based on a couple of business trips per year.
Al is, unwittingly, helping to support Fitzgerald's argument.
Fitzgerald is arguing that when you have a convicted defendant who steadfastly maintains that he did nothing wrong, and a veritable wingnut army shouting in agreement and arguing that the poor dear should receive a pardon, it's very important for the system to send a strong message that yes, a law was violated here, and yes, we do take it very seriously.
If Libby had accepted responsibility, if there wasn't an entire political movement regarding him as a martyr, then it might be appropriate to let him off with a light sentence. But under the circumstances, if you go easy on him, you just provide support for his belief that he didn't really do anything wrong.
It remains amazing, by the way, that wingnuts can see no difference between DA Nifong, whom 99% of the country regards as a hack, and Fitzgerald, whom 28% of the country regards as a hack. To be a member of the modern conservative movement, you seriously have to be willing to believe that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, on every single issue. If everyone other than hardcore wingnuts believes that Patrick Fitzgerald is an impressive and credible public servant, it's like the non-wingnut opinions don't even exist in the first place. They don't simply believe that Fitzgerald is like Nifong - they literally believe that Fitzgerald actually has a "Nifong-like" reputation that he feels he has to "rehabilitate"!
I'm going to side with Petey on this: Fitzgerald was very careful not to say that Valerie Wilson's identity was being 'actively protected', presumably because he didn't want to influence the jury in a trial where the IIPA wasn't an issue. (Of course, the Comstock brigade had no such scruples.)
Now Fitzgerald has said explicitly that Wilson's status fit the IIPA definition of covert, although it could certainly be presumed to a high degree from the CIA's request for an investigation.
He must have decided he couldn't win a conviction in court, perhaps because Novak's original source was Armitage--who had no obvious motive other than gossip.
Or perhaps because he felt an IIPA prosecution would collapse on account of classification issues surrounding evidence, particularly -- as the filing suggests -- if it went all the way up to Cheney.
You left out the fact that Scooter Libby was actively pushing the story to reporters.
And lied under oath to a grand jury. And obstructed justice. Repeatedly.
What is clear from this filing is that the Libby defenders have really gotten under Fitz's skin.
Prominent public figures underwritten with a mountain of cash argue that perjury and obstruction of justice is no big deal. Fitz doesn't like liars. He probably wouldn't like you, Al.
Al, you have to be the dumbest fucking lawyer on the face of the earth.
The legal definition of "covertness" is not ambiguous and the facts relevant to an inquiry into covertness under that definition are fully within the possession of the CIA. That prosecutors make judgments about whether someone meets an element of a criminal statute does not change the fact that the CIA already knew exactly what any prosecutor would have had to conclude on the issue of Plame's covertness.
I'm still waiting for your answers, Petey. You have made exactly zero substantive arguments in this entire thread.
You'd think that if my questions were so stupid, it would be easy for Petey to answer them in a way that refuted my point. Hmm.
Reading the sentencing calculations memo, as Glenn suggests, makes for a good laugh. In the memo, Fitz writes that the "focus of the investigation" was whether anyone violated the IIPA or the Espionage Act. Yet at Fitz's presser, he said "investigators do not set out investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts."
So, Fitz, were you lying then or are you lying now? This really is Nifong-level embarrassing.
"I'm still waiting for your answers, Petey."
As a general rule, you want to put salt on main dishes and sugar on desserts. If you get confused, just raise your hand and wait for an adult to come around.
I'll make Question #1 easy for you, Petey. Here's Section 606(4) of the IIPA.
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
We'll set aside subsections (4)(B) and (4)(C).
So:
How might it have been ambiguous to the CIA whether Plame was a present or retired employee of an intelligence agency, i.e. the CIA?
How might it have been ambiguous to the CIA whether Plame's identity as a CIA agent was classified?
How might it have been ambiguous to the CIA whether Plame had served abroad on CIA business in the past five years?
Please, enlighten me.
The relevant legal question was always whether she qualified for protection under the intelligence identities protection act. If you remember, though given your record of ignorance it would not surprise me if you never heard it in the first place, the co-author of that act testified that plame was not covered by it.
This filing specifically shows that she did meet the requirements of the IIPA, as well as showing that Victoria Toensing had no relevant knowledge about whether Plame qualified under it or not. Having helped write the act might mean you understand the requirements of the act, but does not make one omniscient about a CIA agent's covert activities. If Plame did go on covert overseas trips, which this filing confirms, Toensign would not know about it, because they were covert!
"Served" abroad likely means posted abroad, not taking a trip or two per year. Fitz's dubious assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. And of course the ambiguity here is what exactly "served" abroad means - which is not something the CIA would know.
I still am finding it humorous that for Yglesias and the rest of the nutroots, anything a prosecutor says must be a fact, rather than merely one position in a contested proceeding.
Proof that Matthew and the rest of the commenters are authoritarian in the extreme. No need for the judge, according to Matthew! The prosecutor said so, and so let's consider this issue closed! The Brown Shirts would be so proud.
I still am finding it humorous that for Yglesias and the rest of the nutroots, anything a prosecutor says must be a fact, rather than merely one position in a contested proceeding.
Right. So let's see what rebuttal Libby's lawyers file. I'm all attentive & shit.
I still am finding it humorous that for Yglesias and the rest of the nutroots, anything a prosecutor says must be a fact, rather than merely one position in a contested proceeding.
Let's see, the prosecutor says the CIA provided evidence that she made repeated trips out of the country as a covert CIA operative during the five years prior to her identity being leaked. The administration does not deny this evidence in any way, shape, or form. And an army of know-nothing wingnuts makes a legal argument on the intellectual level of "Joe Wilson is a bad, bad man and therefore his wife deserved to have her cover blown."
I suppose, strictly speaking, that Fitzgerald's report is just one position in a contested proceeding. By the same token, OJ believes the real killers are hiding at country club bar in Florida, and it's important to take his position seriously.
If I may ask a meta-question here: Wouldn't the CIA be better off hiring some scruffy-looking swarthy guys and gals as covert agents instead of platinum blond WASPs? Not that this has anything to do with the CIA's several recent failures...
I still am finding it humorous that for Yglesias and the rest of the nutroots, anything a prosecutor says must be a fact, rather than merely one position in a contested proceeding.
You couldn't illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement any better than by noting the relative importance they attach to the rights of Scooter Libby and Jose Padilla.
Now, to the left, it is "morally bankrupt" to refuse to slavishly defer to the prosecutor!
Authoritarianism certainly is alive and well on the left.
Al, you are a fucking imbecile.
Al, you are a fucking imbecile.
You're mistaking Al for someone like Fred, who is a genuine imbecile. Al is a more interesting type: a liar who's willing (even eager) to pretend to be an imbecile in order to support The Party.
And it's not just pretending to be an imbecile -- Al would likely do anything whatsoever if The Party calls. I suspect he would literally eat shit if it would make Dick Cheney happy.
"Served" abroad likely means posted abroad, not taking a trip or two per year.
A ridiculous arguemnt, (1) contrary to the plain meaning of the language used in the statute, and (2) contrary to the evident purpose of the statute. What, if you disclose the identity of an agent who's only temporarily in a foriegn country, that ought to be okay?
And hell, by your definition, 007 wasn't "covert." Stationed in London, sent abroad on specific missions . . .
Petey writes: "But the IIPA has a very strict definition of the word "covert" that made it very debatable about whether or not Plame fit the definition, specifically in terms of when she was posted overseas."
And what makes you believe the CIA doesn't know exactly when and where Plame has traveled and under what cover?
"based on the EXTREMELY dubious idea that one can be covert based on a couple of business trips per year. "
So, in your opinion, a CIA agent who briefly travels, under cover, to Venezuela via Mexico to plant exploding cigars in Chavez's humidor, should not be considered 'covert' or entitled to identity protection?
A long-term resident agent is more likely to be a known or suspected CIA agent, so I should think any covert ops of this sort would be best assigned to an agent based in the US who would be unknown to the local counterespionage forces.
Petey knows far more than the CIA does, we should listen to him.
Petey contact the CIA and make them allow Libby to go free. Hurry man.
"As previously stated, lotta folks on this thread who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer..."
That's a case of the spoon calling the knives dull.
Petey, you changed your modifier from "un-obvious" to "dubious". One would be, given your limitations, defensible. The other wouldn't be. Particularly in the face of documentary evidence that the CIA, the prosecutor, and the judge were privy to.
Don't go calling other people names, now, ya hear?
Do any of you actually have a life?
Comments closed June 13, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
" Of course, this was obvious all along"
Huh?
If we're talking about "covert" in terms of the relevant law, I think it was extremely un-obvious up until now.
Posted by Petey | May 30, 2007 9:21 AM