Right wingers making a big deal out of this. Anyone have a response?

[Tennessee Gal]

REP. DAVIS: How about after the disclosure, did anyone then say gee, you were designated under the act, this should not have happened? Did anybody in the CIA tell you at that point?

MS. PLAME WILSON: No.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Why would we need to?

[Tennessee Gal]

2. They are saying that the fact that she replied that no one at the CIA

made a point to tell her that the act had been violated is a big deal.

[stevedeshazer]

3. What act?

[Tennessee Gal]

6. The IIPA

[stevedeshazer]

9. What's the IIPA?

[Tennessee Gal]

13. Intelligence Identities Protection Act

[stevedeshazer]

14. Thanks!

I didn't get the code -- now I understand.

[seaglass]

7. But why is it a big deal - what's the logic? n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. They can pick it apart as much as they like, and it will still be the same

result. Cheney...oops "Scooter" outed Valerie.

[jimshoes]

4. Didn't the CIA file a complaint

with Justice after the disclosure?

[NightWatcher]

8. ding ding ding.

they submitted a request for an investigation. I also thought that I heard that there is a classified "after action report" as well.

[annabanana]

24. Yes. They did.. . But why should mere facts spoil their pretty story?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. Aha!

They have reached the point of niggling semantics!

It won't be long now until they go into full disassociative decompensation.

[Amonester]

10. Perhaps they were "scared" to see the "dark actors" (of the BFEE)

driving around their neighborhoods "hidding" in their "dark cars" if they even just "talked" to her...

[Turbineguy]

12. The question would be redundant

Besides, only republicans like to ask the dumbest (edited) question you've ever heard. She was covert. Others in the CIA understood she was covert. If I found out somehow that one of my neighbors was working for the CIA I would assume they were covert unless they actually came up to me and said "Hi, I work for the CIA but I am not covert".

Most people on the planet (except some GOP Congressmen) know that the CIA is a spy agency. One could reasonably expect to find spies there.

[walldude]

16. "One could reasonably expect to find spies there."

The trouble is finding a Bush supporter who is reasonable. Great point though :toast:

[slipslidingaway]

15. I read the same thing on an old message board yesterday

and it is a good question. Are certain officers told they are covered under this act or under an executive order?

K&R for an answer.

Even IF she was not covered under this act it appears she is covered under the Executive Order 12958 which was ammended by Bush in March 2003, Executive Order 13292.

snip>>

"But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's
hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure
under Executive Order 12958."

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316172636-89494.pdf

[Tennessee Gal]

18. Today they are also saying Hayden could be mistaken.

I guess they actually think that Victoria Toensing is the only legal expert in the country qualified to understand the IIPA.

[slipslidingaway]

28. Had not heard that about Hayden, thanks. What I mentioned was

an old posting I read yesterday that said officers are told they are covered under the IIPA??? It could have been total BS, but remains an open question for me as I hate to be barking up the wrong tree.

Even IF she was not covered under the IIPA it appears she is covered under the Executive Order, unless Hayden was mistaken again? Also only one person has been found guilty under the IIAP according to Wikipedia FWIW. The executive order does not have the strict guidelines the IIAP does and was discussed at the hearing.


snip from FDL>>

"You see, pups, section 5.1(b) of 12958 defined a violation of that Executive Order as among other things:

(b) “Violation” means: (1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

And section 5.7 (b) states among other things"

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/17/insta-de-classification-and-other-bedtime-stories




:hi:

[The Wizard]

17. Trying to get an honest dialog

with a Republican is like trying to hold smoke or nail water to a wall. They'll say anything, no matter how remote or removed. Thought disorders compounded by loose associations? Increase the medication.

[karlrschneider]

19. Why would they, after the fact? Once it became public there'd be no point!

:eyes:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. Arguing semantics won't change facts

The CIA requested an investigation on the outing of Plame. That is one fact they refuse to argue, because it's plain and simple with no room for them to fuzzy the truth.

[WinkyDink]

21. I guess they couldn't find the appropriate Hallmark "Condolences" card.

What MORANS these Republicans be!

[annabanana]

22. What? She needed someone to tell her she shouldn't have

been outed?

How dumb is that?

[Hepburn]

23. LIke....

...how STUPID does someone have to be to wonder if anyone informed her? She knew it the minute she read the newspaper ~~ no one had to give her a section of the United States Code to let her know what the hell happened to her.

And as any victim of a crime...how often to the cops walk up and tell somneone, for example, who has been mugged that he/she has been mugged? GMAFB!

The victim ALREADY knows what has happened to them!

[Tennessee Gal]

25. They want Hayden brought in and put under oath regarding the

statement he had Waxman read.

[Hepburn]

26. You know with the hard core Pubbies that would not work.

If the ceiling parted, and god entered the hearing room and made a pronouncement under oath that Valerie Plame was covert, some would STILL believe Toensing and complain that god was a democrat.

[Tennessee Gal]

27. Good one!