Valerie Plame, Repuke Stupidity, and a cry for help!

[DrCorday]

:cry:

Okay, I've been getting a lot of shit from the NeoCons on this subject (Valerie Plame and crew.) So I wonder if I could clear up some crap I've been running into with the Repukes. Apologies for the dupes that may have been created by this interloping post...

1. Leaking Plame's identity was not illegal.

Setting aside the obvious moral problems here, many Neocons seem to believe that there is no law saying that leaking the identity of a spy is illegal.... What does the law say about this?

2. Plame was not undercover.

Some conservatives say that: even if leaking a spies identity were illegal, it doesn't count because Plame was not undercover. Is this true? Most articles describe Plame as a "covert CIA agent," and Novak argues that she wasn't, or that if she was, he didn't know. Very confusing. Was she undercover or not? What difference does it make?

3. Leaking a spy's name is not treason.

This provides that the previous two statements are false and that no moral obligations to the national security apply. Many argue that revealing Plame's identity served a legitimate purpose in explaining the discrepancy between Wilson and the Bushie's ideas going to war. They also argue that the law does not make this crime punishable as an act of treason.

4. The Grand Jury was convened to determine if a law had been broken.

Often, I point out that if there was no law here, there would most likely be no Grand Jury investigation. Repukes say that there could be simply to determine whether or not a law was broken. Aside from the logical flaw of such an assertion confirming the existence of a so-stated law, this gets in the way of the argument that someone is looking for a criminal here. What does the law have to say about this? Is it true that they could be convening the Grand Jury for no reason? I thought not, but I have no proof.

5. Plame has been undercover for 5 years; so it's okay to "out" her.

Some Repuke somewhere has dug up some obscure statute of limitations. I don't know anything about it, but many are arguing that even if 1-3 are false, it doesn't matter because the law says that you're allowed to out a spy who's been undercover for more than 5 years. Absurd, but I have no proof to dispute it.

6. Joe Wilson outed Plame.

No idea why he would do that, but it does suggest that Wilson could have a reason to out his wife. I doubt it, but what does this mean legally. Who besides Wilson and the Administration knew about Plame?

7. Rove's previous links to Novak.

I know we have threads on this, so I'll be brief: Where are they? Has this sort of thing happened before?

8. Prove that someone in the Administration is responsible for the leak.

I am frequently getting charged with this. Anyone have a card detailing the progression at which it can be deduced that the only people who could be responsible must be involved with the White House? A conviction of sorts is not necessary, I just need to narrow down the list of suspects for the leak to someone in the Bush Administration. We all know that's where it came from, but apparently the Repukes do not.

Thank you so much to all of my friends at the DU. Hope this post leads somewhere helpful...

I'm looking for proof, statistics, references, and valid arguments or language to use to help frame and win this debate with the Neocons. I'd also like to put this together into some sort of fact sheet/page at some point. I will also be doing Google, Wikipedia, Dkospedia, and DU searches on this subject. (Pre-empt for the search nazi's: I'm there already, but thank you.)

Thank you all again. And I'm sorry for the trouble!

Most Amiably,
-
DrCorday.
Seattle, Washington.
:dem:

[cornermouse]

1. It all depends

on whether the offender was democrat or republican. Had a democrat done the above, we would have had multiple investigations.

Since it was the republicans who did it, they're doing the only thing they can...sweep it under the rug.

[Imperialism Inc.]

2. Intelligence Identities Protection Act

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

1 & 2 are basically the same question. Whether it is illegal or not hinges on whether she was a "covert" agent. And whether or not the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States. All indications are that she was a "covert" operative.
3. It does not indicate that it is treason in the law above. Still, it came from someone in the White House, for purely political reasons , and she was involved with operations regarding WMD (something you would think the White House would care about the way they talk). It probably technically isn't treason , but maybe it should be.
4. Not sure what to say other than it is obviously not for no reason. The purpose of a Grand Jury is to see if there is enough evidence to indict someone and have a trial.
5. Nonsense. If she was commonly known as a CIA operative and there were no efforts to conceal that she was , then there is a loophole there as stated in the law above. But the 5 year thing sounds like something someone just made up out of thin air.
6. Whatever
7.
8. I'm pretty sure(99.9) the journalists that were contacted have stated clearly that it was someone from the whitehouse. Are we to believe they are lying?

[Igel]

16. This places the bar for convicting Novak fairly high.

"...knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States..."

Just knowing and she was covert isn't sufficient.

Also, somewhere I heard she hadn't been in the field for a few years; her identities were still in place, in case she needed them. Any idea as to the accuracy of that?

[DrCorday]

22. I don't know...

Most conservatives argue that she wasn't a covert operative. Most articles concerning this matter refer to Ms. Plame as a "covert CIA operative," but Mr. Novak's does not. Was she undercover or not?

Some have answered this already, but like, a link might be nice. I am still very confused.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Don't let them hoodwink you....

1. Illegal and on the books - Felony

2. She was Deep cover, and her entire network was blown

3. Might not be treason but pretty close Bush Sr. sys it's treason (outing an agent)

4. GJ convined to discover who passed the secret information.

5. All the worse because she had set up a network and was deep undercover.

6. Bullshit. Top Secret Clearence and need to know. Only a few top people in the Admin. could even get the info.

7. I don't know

8. That's what the GJ is attempting to do. Novak said he got it from the administration

9. Debating Wingnuts, while interesting, is a waste of time.

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. kick n/t

[dave123williams]

4. Answer to your #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #8

#1 & #3. Well, it seems to me that Freepers are generally a perfect confluence of willful ignorance colored by poisoned rhetoric. Here's why:

Fact: the unauthorized disclosure of information relating to the identity of an American intelligence official is a crime punishable by fines and up to 10 years in prison under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act. This is in additon to what Sec 50 of the US Federal Criminal Code provides for, which is 5 years and some more ugly fines, I think. I'd have to dig a little more to find out what you could do if actually throwing the book at someone over this :)

What elevates the whole imbroglio to treason? Read more here:

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

I'd love to see the Freep response to this. I'm sure it's cogent.

As regards your question #2, surprise, they're full of it on this one as well...Plame's own brother didn't know what she actually did for a living; her specialty in the CIA was nuclear weapons proliferation, and her profile put her in corporate boardrooms of the companies that would know if black market traffic in fissile materials was taking place. Pretty sensitive stuff, dontcha think?

Yeah; it's a good bet her identity wasn't anything approaching common knowledge.

If somebody was, let's say, making her cover common knowledge amongst key insider Republicans gathered around the country-club fire for a nice glass of scotch after a good round of golf, well, that's a Federal Crime. Period.

Whomever is responsible put at risk the very lives of Ms. Plame, and every contact she ever had in every country in which she ever operated.

#4. Well, they're right. A Federal Grand Jury has been convened. Where the Freepers are off the mark is in not realizing that the Grand Jury is still doing its investigation. If the Freepers don't believe this, you should probably point them back at their own site for the latest:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093819/posts

Turns out this very same investigation has been super busy this week, determining if a gay male escort posing as a reporter (while an active GOPUSA political operative) was in possession of classified CIA documents relating to the Plame matter, and if so, who in the Whitehouse leaked it.

Propoganda, treason, man-love for hire, and blackmail - this one's really got it all.

Grand Jury investigations take place in secret, and they happen to see if a preponderance factual evidence exists to merit criminal charges, which would then go to trial. In this case, the law was clearly broken. The question that they're investigating is, who broke it?

I think lawyers use the phrase 'res ipsa loquitur' about this kind of item. It means 'the thing speaks for itself'. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative. The whole country now knows about it, therefore somebody who had access to that classified knowledge leaked it to a reporter, who printed it. Res ipsa loquitor; there's a treasonous rat in the administration.

Who in this Administration had the balls to out an intelligence asset of the United States, simply to be petty? Whomever it was is well on the way to being everybody's favorite new bitch, in Leavenworth.

#5. See my verbiage on #3. Desperate, and grasping at straws if they're looking back to see how long it takes for their own felonies to expire.

#6. So stupid, it doesn't merit a response. It's his wife, for Christsake.

Let's try Occam's razor on this one:

Which is more likely to be true? a) Joe Wilson, an American Ambassador to four separate countries with 25 years of service to the American People and an expert in African Uranium mining, in a fit of partisan passion decides to put his wife in mortal danger by blowing her cover to make Robert Novak look bad, or b) Wilson's questioning of the bogus rationale that led us in to an elective war triggered a vindictive, spiteful and illegal action on the part of an administration that has as it's hallmarks secrecy, blind loyalty, and the well-documented intimidation of everybody it deals with?

To lift one of their favorite phrases, you decide.

#7. Not so sure about this one; it's hard for me to read much about Novak without feeling like I have to de-louse.

#8. That's what Grand Juries are for. Oh yeah, trials too.

Hope that helps.

[H2O Man]

5. One additional thing:

{4} Fitzgerald is also gathering evidence that tends to show that at least one White House official who testified before the Grand Jury has committed perjury. I would suggest that anyone talking to our republican brethern direct them to the study of the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals. Then tell them to buckle their seat belts: the ride is about to begin.

[calimary]

19. Good references, these.

Kick!

[DrCorday]

6. Thanks!

I probably still need more on Novak and a few links discussing the "undercoverness" of Valerie Plame, but for the most part, I think this will help a lot.

Now, I still am faced with the problem that Freepers will say anthing to avoid implicating the Bushies in anything.

It's like they honestly tend to think the man has no faults and has never, ever, screwed up as President. I was occaisionally irritated with the Clinton Administration, so this kind of bizarre faux-patriotism they've come up with seems repulsively North Korean. "Our Great Leader" is Perfect and Always Right.

Whatever. I think I'm getting closer to having a arsenal with which to end the Valerie Plame argument every time. Thanks a lot everyone!

[dave123williams]

7. "Leader" is an interesting choice of words for them...

The exact German translation of that particular word is 'Führer'.

So, they have this "Leader" that they think can do no wrong. Sound familiar?

A friend of mine likes to say that a Republican's love for his country is like a four-year-old's love for it's mommy: Mommy can do no wrong, and anybody who says anything critical of Mommy must be evil.

A liberals love of the country is more adult; we take the good with the bad, we accept the flaws and work very hard to make the relationship better.

Anyway, glad I could help; good luck trying to sway them. Even with criminal convictions, they'll probably still be bleating that this is all politically motivated.

[DrCorday]

14. Yeah, they're kinda insane.

I've also run into Freepers who argue that true liberalism would be fascism. Something about the Nazi's being socialist and blah blah... They cite examples of how liberals believe in totalitarian regimes or something...

Then I simply ask which of our presidents brought down Hitler and they piss their pants.

I don't know. We need a way to reframe some of these discussions to make our message clearer.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

8. Any evidence that Jeff Gannon

had any connection to the disgusting Valerie Plame leak? There were some rumors floating around on one of the other blogs, but I haven't seen substantiation of that yet. Anyone have links?

[Lars39]

9. No. 7, Yes.

Just watched "Bush's Brain" and it mentioned the Rove/Novak leak.
I'm sure the book has it,too.
Also, to make it even worse, Valerie Plame's network kept up with WMD,
from what I understand. #5...they're just talking out their @ss.

[FreedomAngel82]

11. I think the

movie is pretty much based on the book. I haven't seen all of the movie yet (about 90% of it) and for what I've seen Rove has done so much dirtyness.

[Lars39]

10. DU Plame thread Links!

You'll have to do a lot of reading to cull out what you need:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=427990

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2408386

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2754351

[demgrrrll]

12. This blogger has a consise and readable timeline and information

about Gannon's involvement with the Plame issue. I think he does a good job with the information
<http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4879>

[Lars39]

13. That IS good! Thanks for the link! eom

[alcuno]

15. The real question is "Since when do the people support the government over

their fellow citizens?" We should simply assume that the government is not on our side and kick these politicians in the ass. Until GWB, I had NO idea that conservatives were such a bunch of droolers and followers.

You can't win the debate on facts because they no longer matter to the true-believers. Ask instead why Republicans have become a party of sycophants.

[Hoping4Change]

17. This info from John Dean's wesbsite might be helpful to you..

The White House Need Not Have Leaked to Have Committed a Crime


Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan has chosen his words carefully in denying that anyone at the White House was involved with the leak. To remain credible, a press secretary cannot be caught in either a lie, or a serious misstatement based on ignorance.


snip

It is entirely possible that no one at the Bush "White House" or on the President's personal staff, was involved in the initial leak to Novak. It could have been someone at the National Security Council, which is related to the Bush White House but not part of it.


In fact, Novak wrote in one of his later columns, that the leak came from a person who was "no partisan gunslinger." That sounds like an NSC staffer to me. And as Newsweek also reported (you can count on Michael Isikoff to dig this stuff out), Valerie Plame's CIA identity was likely known to senior intelligence people on the NSC staff, for apparently one of them had worked with Ms. Plame at the CIA.


But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.






Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here


This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.


Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.


What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.


If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson "fair game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer, for he made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset's identity. There are others.

snip


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html

[calimary]

18. Let's keep this kicked.

More than just this DUer will need the background info, and the verbal armaments.

I'll bet there will be MORE of these "oh YEAH?" in-yer-face arguments as they try louder bluster and bullshit to throw us off track. The louder and more confrontational and nastier they get should be a signal - they're getting more and more afraid and uncertain and nervous. KEEP PUSHING. KEEP PLUGGING. KEEP DIGGING.

[demgrrrll]

20. Absolutely. What a bully counts on is being able to make people

back down with some bluster and bravado. We really do have them. This is like a game of Texas Hold Em, we have the pocket aces and we will win if we don't fold.

[DrCorday]

21. The main problem I've realized...

So I was basically in this argument with various conservatives and I'm just thinking "they have NO idea what the hell they're talking about..."

But then something depressing came across my radar: "Neither do I." :dunce:

So more research was necessary. Ultimately, even the most educated of us don't have all the time in the world to prove we're right about these things - although if we did, I think we probably would - and the trick I'm really looking for is the ability to reframe the issue.

We shouldn't be arguing about the statute of limitations on this law; and instead arguing about the best way to keep security secrets away from national enemies. The Repukes like to get us off on things like "AIDS comes from tears..." because they know they're going to lose the real debate, which is the fact that "abstinence-based education simply doesn't work."

Same deal here. But this one is also very confusing, and, quite possibly, the next Watergate. I'd hate to see a second President impeached in a row, but I don't think they realize the damage they're doing to our democracy with these hair-splitting debates.

CYA ALL LATER!