Have you seen the new CitizenSpook?

[libertypirate]

Since the beginning of the Plame affair I always believed there was more to this story, more than meets the eye. The fact that an entire clandestine WMD operation has been destroyed by the outing of this one agent and that the story almost exclusively been focused for us away from the real crime; this has always made it apparent that there was much more going on then actually known. It is important that we are critical of all players on the world stage.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-in-cahoots-how-white-house.html

[yowzayowzayowza]

1. Looks like they've spooked themselves:

Joe Wilson is in cahoots with the Bush Administration along with David Corn, Bob Novak and Valerie Plame Wilson, a cast of spooks who have only just been outed with the writing of this article. They've carefully scripted this entire affair to shield themselves from prosecution for monolithic treasons against US citizens and our military. Treasongate, Rovegate, Leakgate, whatever you want to call it, is, in reality, an intricate version of hide and seek where the perpetraitors" have been controlling both sides of the game.

... believe CitizenSpook has gotten lost in the deep end of the pool.

[leveymg]

3. The Deep End, Yes. But, He's Right About How the Legal

issues and the range of dialogue have been constrained by where the gatekeepers in the media have placed themselves. True, there's been an almost exclusive focus on the IIPA to the exclusion of the several relevant sections of the Espionage Act. Wilson is not a saint, and he's not the sole intended victim. True, again. But, Citizenspook is hardly the only voice out there who have been writing about these things.

He's not as out of the mainstream as he thinks he is.

[libertypirate]

4. I have always wondered why the liberal media didn't focus

on the facts that Bush exposed a major investigation into the proliferation of WMD, and the financing of terrorism. Ignorance is bliss in the cuckoo bananas world of the Bush presidency especially when his daily briefing reads "My business partner’s brother determined to attack with in the United States".

[seemslikeadream]

2. TREASON

To out Plame and smear Wilson as a smokescreen for a greater sin, a greater Treason, a Treason of past and future murder of innocent
citizens...now that is a motivation that warranted risking their
violation of 18 USC 794.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-in-cahoots-how-white-house.html

[wli]

5. I've suspected Cheney was dealing nukes on the side

So it makes sense, though I would rather have more corroborating evidence about Wilson/Plame complicity before taking it as a given.

[wishlist]

6. I disagree with conclusion that Novak didn't report Plame was covert etc

I have a few points of disagreement with spook's arguments:

#1--- Citizen spook says that Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA even though Novak reported that she was an "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction". This strikes me as semantics because almost everyone would assume that a CIA operative is by definition someone working on classified undercover activities.

#2--- Spook wrote this article without realizing that Corn has written about statutes regarding treason including section 793 and how this could apply to Rove and WH leakers:

David Corn wrote on August 8th-"But worse for Rove--from a legal perspective--is section 793. Rove did communicate classified information which could be used "to the injury of the United States" to a person "not entitled to receive it." The information was the identity of an undercover intelligence official working on anti-WMD operations. Such information could be used to thwart or undermine past or present CIA operations and assets connected to Valerie Wilson. The persons "not entitled" to received this info were Robert Novak and Matt Cooper (and perhaps there were more).

I am--as I've said before--no lawyer. But given the letter of the law in section 793, it seems to me there is a case to be made that Rove essentially did what Franklin did. There may be a difference in intent or awareness. Perhaps Rove did not know he was passing on classified information that could be used to the detriment of the United States (though he should have realized that had he given the matter a moment or two of thought), and it seems that Franklin had to know he was sharing classified material with outsiders. But section 793 does not say a violator must be aware he or she is passing on information that could cause harm to the United States if exposed. It only sets as a criterion that the violator "willfully" communicates this information. I assume that means a purely accidental slip of the lip would not be a crime. But Rove--who told at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson's CIA position--cannot argue he was not "willfully" communicating this information to others.

So might Fitzgerald have a case under section 793? Journalists don't like these sorts of prosecutions, for it brings us close to an official secrets act (like the one that exists in Britain). If prosecutors chased after government leakers--say those who leaked intelligence showing that the White House's case for war in Iraq was weak--the public would suffer. And the Justice Department's indictment of Rosen and Weissman--nongovernment officials--for passing along classified information is also worrisome for reporters who pass along classified information by publishing and airing stories that contain secret information. But Fitzgerald has certainly demonstrated he's not too concerned about pursuing legal cases and setting legal precedents that are bad for journalism. And that's why Rove ought to be sweating the Franklin indictment."

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2005/08/why_the_aipac_i.php

#3--- As far as spooks comments on Joe Wilson- there are things I have been puzzled over too and shook my head about such as the Vanity Fair article. One explanation for that publicity by the Wilsons is that by then Valerie had been exposed and her actitivies and contacts compromised already by that time but they might have felt like Sibel Edmonds that the public needed to be more aware and that media exposure might provide them some protection as whistleblowers.

As far as what Joe Wilson told David Corn after the Novak leak, if Joe refused to talk about her, that alone would have signaled to Corn that her activities were covert and what Novak had written about her WMD activity would have given Corn enough to be able to speculate about the rest on his own without any specifics from Wilson.

Hopefully we will hear more from David Corn and Joe Wilson in response to these inflammatory charges and important questions raised by Citizen Spook.

[libertypirate]

7. Look at the possibilities....

and remember they are selling this story.

When he talks about her position and how Novak worded or titled her. Novak was vague enough that the ordinary citizen would not think the inclusiveness of all possible meanings how he stated her. This would only be known to people who deal in those sensitive circles. I think we can make an assumption to what were meaning of the words specifically knowing now in hind sight at the time of the Novak column "Agency operative" could include the possibility of a computer analyst as even some on the right have implied.

..

Corn did cover the statute but like a ditto head didn't reapply the this new relevant information to all actors. This assumption disregards the real possibility that the Wilsons were both acting in concert to split the electorate into a political stalemate. Corn then leaves out that he and Wilson were both trumpeting a law that did not most simply reflect the facts of the case. Which happens to primarily what now indicates that both parties Corn and the Wilsons are attempting through message control imply what is the applicable law.

While the facts of the case can fit the definition of both statues, the law trumpeted by the media agents would only apply if the other didn't.

Check this out from another CS post :
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-controlling-law-part-2.html

The Associated Press and other main stream media outlets published stories about the AIPAC indictments today. But those accounts don't mention that the indictments were brought under 18 USC 793.

Perhaps this has something to do with the official press release issued by McNulty's office which does not mention 18 USC 793. This is certainly a break for the Bush administration, because a Google news search, as of 11:38 a.m. today, August 5, 2005, using the acronym, "AIPAC", and the number, "793" only returns one Blogosphere hit.

Why isn't the main stream media discussing 18 USC 793 and 794? The Title 18 statutes are the most relevant statutes to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation.

The sheer scope of intentional ignorance on the part of the main stream media warrants a staggering shame upon those dying institutions whose relevance is quickly becoming marginalized to the point of complete irrelevance. They are not "breaking" stories. They are engaged in controlled propaganda which does not stand up to the monolithic power of the Blogosphere. It's disgusting how they operate in a "see no evil" herd of complicity.

....

It is more important to understand that anyone trying to imply facts to this case is likely involved.

The most disturbing reality in all this and the real crime that remains hidden. Regardless the political soap opera at play, this entire group willingly and knowingly exposed an clandestine WMD intelligence operation. The destruction of this entire network hobbled an effort to expose groups dealing in the proliferation of WMD and knowledge of the financing of Bush's terra campaign.

The media should be going ape shit that someone in within the office of the president destroyed this entire operation.