Wacka Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 It is the 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act. Here is an interview from CNN with the AUTHOR of the law, Bruce Sanford: CNN article And here is a transcript from Brit Hume's show on Fox: Fox interview Facts suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 It is the 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act. Here is an interview from CNN with the AUTHOR of the law, Bruce Sanford: CNN article 481420[/snapback] The truth of the matter is that this was a law passed in 1982 to stop Philip Agee from outing our covert agents during the Cold War abroad.So you're referencing a Bill of Attainder? I'll stick to the Espionage Act of 1917, thanks. EDIT: For those of you not familiar with Bills of Attainder - Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Convenient how you left out the next sentence: "An important question for sure as to whether anyone goes to jail but not, in my opinion, all that important on the question of whether Rove and Libby are political henchman, hatchet artists operating barely within the broad confines of the law." If you want to pretend that the only issue here is one of criminal law and ultimately whether or not Karl Rove goes to jail at club med for 60 days and ignore the political side, fine, I am not so inclined. The political issue of payback and hackery more deserving of the Corleones than of a Presidential administration is what I find most important and the technicalities of whether Rove beats the wrap or not is, by comparison, "ticky-tack". 481413[/snapback] If your main concern is political hatchet jobs, then you would also be locking up a majority of the prominent Dems as well. Hatchet jobs are not illegal. They are unethical, but not illegal. The question is, and always has been, if laws were broken. You would think a lawyer would be able to distinguish that fact. Now, your next post (if it is like all of your others) will accuse me of excusing this type of behavior (facts do not seem to be important to you, just how you can bash the righties), so I thought I would pre-empt you. I have never, nor will I ever condone that type of behavior. Let me restate so you do not miss it or misinterpret my statement. I have never, nor will I ever, condone that type of behavior. The releasing of the name could be an accident, it could be intentional, it could be a crime. At least you have the decency to see whether he has committed a crime before you toss him in jail, but you have already determined that this was intentional. Guilty until proven innocent from our resident lawyer. Nice job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 A senior official seems to think that there is a "cabel" (his words, not mine) between Cheney and Runsfeld which led to the administration's choice to go to war (the other stuff was more FYI). IMO it's a bit more than "disagreeing with policy-making process." It brings into question who's pushing whose agenda in the shrub house. 481323[/snapback] Actually, that's exactly "disagreeing with policy-making process". The assumed process was: Cheney and Rumsfeld made the policy, handed it to Bush, Bush fronted it, everyone fell in line. Wilkerson disagrees with it. So do you, apparently. So do I, for that matter (and I believe Wilkerson in this regard. I said so way back when in the run-up to war: it had a distasteful "boys-with-toys", "We have a big-ass military, and by God we're gonna use it!" flavor to it.) Plus, presuming Wilkerson's right about the "cabal"...it's hardly news. It was reported back then that State (i.e. Powell) felt frozen out of the decision process. I'd be more worried if Wilkerson started stating otherwise right now...but the story is more or less "Wilkerson is reporting that he still believes what he told us three years ago." crap from the media. BTW, nice use of "who's" and "whose". Gold star for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Fox interview Facts suck. 481420[/snapback] No, you going back and editing your posts without the benefit of letting people know you did sucks. Hmmm... An interview, on Fox News, By Brit Hume no less, with an attorney who has an interest in this case... Okey-dokey... A Bill of Attainder... Too funny. So that's all you got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Pointing out that there may be another side to the story story means that they do not care about the law? Holy Hell, I am glad you are not my lawyer. Yes, those cool headed, nonpartisans of the right were simply and innocently pointing out all sides to the story so objective are they in all things political. So, you admit that you are just making things up to justify your partisan rants. Could it possibly be that they <gasp> disagree with your assessment of the situation? I'm sure they do. I think that the administration engaged in a nasty game of payback against a critic and were willing to walk the line of legality and maybe even cross it, to get it done. They think that Wilson is a liar, that its no big deal, that Plame was already known, that technically no crime was committed and that is all that matters, etc, etc, etc. Well worn territory here. I am not sure why it is such a big deal to you that I have an opinon as to the motivations of many of the people who defend Rove and company on this issue without fail, without exception and without even a cursory thought that he might have done just what he is accused of having done. I'm sure you are just as willing to charitably attribute the motivations of democrats on the board on this issue. Well, I guess you are ignoring the people who have specifically stated that if he broke the law, then he should be punished accordingly. I guess that if it doesn't fit your partisan rants, it does not exist. I'm not ignoring them, I said "...those on the right..." did you really think that meant "...those on the right, all Xmillions of them, with no exeception whatsoever..."? Yeah, that's a fair interpretation. Is it really your point that there are no partisans at all on the board among the right who are going to defend Rove no matter what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Because I was responding to Gavin's post where it was mentioned in the article he referenced that Wilson was "the only that lied." I don't see where the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of Wilson's report(s) is relavant to the adminstration's obstruction of justice and flaunting the law. But then again, I didn't post it, I only responded to it. 481382[/snapback] Had you bothered to view my post in context, you would have seen that I only posted the material I did in response to TPS's post which was directly related to Wilson's credibility. But hey, if you want to keep going off on tangents, nobody can stop you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 BTW, nice use of "who's" and "whose". Gold star for you. 481442[/snapback] Yuppers. I be reel smart! Frankly, I digressed in those posts. To me the real issue is that we have senior administration officials lying during a criminal investigation about leaks from said administration. Regardless if the leak itself was illegal, lying to cover it up is. Granted, it won't get the airtime that Clinton's lies about his extramarital hummer did (sensationalism sells), but it's not an entirely different set of circumstance either - provided no law was broken by the leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Had you bothered to view my post in context, you would have seen that I only posted the material I did in response to TPS's post which was direcly related to Wilson's credibility. But hey, if you want to keep going off on tangents, nobody can stop you... 481457[/snapback] Sorry if that made you feel like I was calling you out, but I was quoting the article, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yuppers. I be reel smart! Frankly, I digressed in those posts. To me the real issue is that we have senior administration officials lying during a criminal investigation about leaks from said administration. Regardless if the leak itself was illegal, lying to cover it up is. Granted, it won't get the airtime that Clinton's lies about his extramarital hummer did (sensationalism sells), but it's not an entirely different set of circumstance either - provided no law was broken by the leak. 481458[/snapback] In other words: they should go to jail just like Martha Stewart. I can accept that reasoning (I don't agree with it, but I can accept it.) Plus...leaks? From what I've seen so far, taking all the partisan BS out, someone who was not undercover was not explicitly outed by people when they were not asked about her by reporters - one of whom spent a few months in jail to testify "I don't remember who told me." This is only missing an element of salaciousness to achieve utter inanity that Fellatiogate achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 The question is, and always has been, if laws were broken. You would think a lawyer would be able to distinguish that fact. You don't think there is a political issue here? If you don't, just tell me that straight up and we can end this discussion. There are two issues here, one is criminal and that is for the prosecutor to worry about for now. The second issue is political and I think it is far more important here and frankly, more interesting to discuss. You see, whether or not people want to be represented by an administration that does this kind of crap, even if it turns out to be legal, is a fair issue to discuss. Its called politics. This board, I believe, is called "Politics, Polls and Pundits" hence my belief that it was permissible to discuss the political effect of a criminal investigation here. Sorry. My bad. Seriously, you can't really think that a criminal investigation, even one that results in no charges, will have no political effect when the persons under investigation occupy high positions in government? The releasing of the name could be an accident, it could be intentional, it could be a crime. At least you have the decency to see whether he has committed a crime before you toss him in jail, but you have already determined that this was intentional. Guilty until proven innocent from our resident lawyer. Nice job. OJ wasn't convicted so I guess we should all just embrace him, I mean, technically he is not guilty so anyone who would let the failed investigation and trial color their opinions of him must be some raving partisan loon right? Sorry but I have no problem reaching conclusions about what I think about his behaviour regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. For now, looks to me like they did a nasty payback that skirted the law at best and crossed it at worst. Thus based on this episode and others, I have reached the conlusion that Das Karl is a scumbag, I'm just not sure yet whether his scumbagness reaches the level of criminal conduct yet. For that I am willing to wait for what the prosectutor has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 In other words: they should go to jail just like Martha Stewart. I can accept that reasoning (I don't agree with it, but I can accept it.) Plus...leaks? From what I've seen so far, taking all the partisan BS out, someone who was not undercover was not explicitly outed by people when they were not asked about her by reporters - one of whom spent a few months in jail to testify "I don't remember who told me." This is only missing an element of salaciousness to achieve utter inanity that Fellatiogate achieved. 481476[/snapback] If anything, we should learn from this just how hard that prosecutor's job must be. How he has managed to handle it this far without any major leaks coming out is beyond me. My hunch is that he agreed to Miller's request that she be questioned only on the one source, Libby, because he really, really, needed her testimony, ie, his case is weak in terms of criminal charges sticking. That limitation allowed her to "not remember" where she got the name without being cross examined on the issue. I'm just speculating because you could argue that maybe his case is so strong that he didn't need to go there. Just have to wait. Politically, the administration has already paid their dues on this so even if no charges are ever filed, its not crucial. Like Clinton. Yeah, he was not impeached ultimately but from a political standpoint, that hardly mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 No, you going back and editing your posts without the benefit of letting people know you did sucks. Hmmm... An interview, on Fox News, By Brit Hume no less, with an attorney who has an interest in this case... Okey-dokey... A Bill of Attainder... Too funny. So that's all you got? 481449[/snapback] You replied in a minute or so, before I could add the second link. By time I added it your post was there. I also found a Slate article that said the same thing (2 lib sources and 1 conservative). A bill of attainder is defined as "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial". The law that I cite does not say anything about not having a trial. It does not single out anyone. This is the law that the press is citing for trying to get Rove et al. Pure and simple, the law does NOT apply in this case. Why do you keep ignoring the facts I stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 You replied in a minute or so, before I could add the second link. By time I added it your post was there. I also found a Slate article that said the same thing (2 lib sources and 1 conservative). A bill of attainder is defined as "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial". The law that I cite does not say anything about not having a trial. It does not single out anyone. This is the law that the press is citing for trying to get Rove et al. Pure and simple, the law does NOT apply in this case. Why do you keep ignoring the facts I stated. 481565[/snapback] As far as I can tell, I'm not ignoring any facts. -Whether or not he broke a law being cited by the media doesn't mean he didn't break other laws. Surely you're aware there are other laws on the books? -The person who you claim authored the bloody law that you keep citing said that it was written for one person - in the link you provided! Laws can not be written for one person according to former Chief Justice Rheinquist's opine, which was included in the link I provided about Bills of Attainder. Doing so means that the person's actions are adjudicated as illegal while denying him due process. That's why they're illegal. See Federalist Paper 44, also in that link I provided for more information. Why do you keep ignoring the Espionage Act of 1917? Why do you keep ignoring that lying to a criminal investigator is obstruction of justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Somebody's cat died today. This is so minor when someone's Smokey chases little rubber balls on higher plane beyond us. We should all stop, and remember someone's dead cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Here is another article: Investor's Business Daily Well if that law is a Bill of Attainder, then it is illegal and there was no law broken! Hah! What lying to a criminal investigation? Who? What proof? The only lying I see is by Wilson and his wife, Plame. Maybe they will get indicted? Maybe the reporter that was locked up? Why did she spend a month in jail and then use the Sgt. Schultz defense " I know nothing!...NOTHING!" Why don't you put up this 1917 espionage act you keep talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Why don't you put up this 1917 espionage act you keep talking about? 481633[/snapback] RMPL Look at the previous page Have you read any posts besides the last 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 She wasn't a CIA covert operative any more. She hadn't been one for 9 years. She was a desk jockey in CIA HQ. That law doesn't apply either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Somebody's cat died today. This is so minor when someone's Smokey chases little rubber balls on higher plane beyond us. We should all stop, and remember someone's dead cat. 481610[/snapback] My aunt died today. It's just like losing a pet. I'll grieve for a while, and maybe next week get a new aunt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 21, 2005 Author Share Posted October 21, 2005 A couple of resonses to some throughout this thread: 1. It was the CIA that requested Justice to investigate the leak, so it's not some political witch hunt. In addition, Why would the CIA ask for an investigation if they didn't think there was a violation? Does it matter whether the source was an act/law/bill? As for the credibility of Wilson (and this is the first time I've read someone question his wife's credibility too--only at PPP...), the administration admitted that the Niger data should not have been in the SOU address, which supports Wilson's claim. Didn't Tenet even take the blame? As for "editorials" from conservatives that claim Wilson lied, I can also provide "editorials" that claim he didn't. For example: Liars I'm not trying to defend Wilson per se, rather that fact that the right, center, left or whatever can provide us with any slant they want. Seems to me though, the right is saying Wilson lied, and at the same time saying the administration either exaggerated or "miscommunicated." Can't have it both ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts