Concerning the Wilsons, it has been said they have a hard case to

[mmonk]

prove since they can't say her NOC status being exposed isn't an official duty of those that exposed her. If that is the case, why on earth would anyone ever join the CIA and risk being betrayed by your own government, especially in the field where you would most likely be captured or killed? I would like all you apologists of the Obama Justice Department to explain that one to me.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Look again -

that case was investigated by the Bush administration.

"... apologists..."

Oh, man, you do have some issues, it's obvious.

Any more questions?

[mmonk]

3. You're exactly right, I do.

http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=dbB4blzOHEktWxMFN6Ftdz7uW30fM

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Then,

why play coy little passive-aggressive games?

That link was rendered uninteresting by your unnecessary ploy.

Have a good one ................

[mmonk]

7. Who's coy? It's pretty straight up. I disagree with the Justice Department's

argument. Do you have an explanation as to why someone would want to after this precedent?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. You're making no sense.......

and, besides, as I initially pointed out, it was under the Bush administration that the matter was investigated and Libby's case adjudicated.

What "argument"? You don't know what you're talking about, and everything you post makes that painfully obvious. I shouldn't even respond to you, but this kind of misapprehension is so appalling, it demands redress.

You're scraping bottom when you can't even get a timeline straight.

Put it to bed ........................

[mmonk]

19. The suit in question is not settled. It is a civil suit, not the Libby trial.

There currently is an appeal. And no, I won't put it to bed when I have legitimate questions to ask.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. Last I saw,

the appeal was denied. You're not reading well, you know.

You've got something against the entire judiciary?

[mmonk]

22. To help you understand my putting the current Justice Department

into the equation, they have jumped into the middle of a civil suit over damages in support of Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage. They want to stress the Wilsons have no case in their opinion even though the case does not involve the Obama administration. Hence, my question on why would anyone even want to put themselves in jeopardy by joining the CIA.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. It's not "jumping " -

the government is obliged to enter the matter when its employees are being sued.

Got that? It's a matter of their employees being the parties in the suit, so, as the boss, they are required to have their say.

You need to talk to an attorney about this, and you'll see what a simple matter it is. You seem to see something sinister in it,when, in fact, it's very hard for an individual or individuals to sue Federal employees.

You might ask people who join the CIA why they do it, then. I'm sure they'll be able to answer your question, which strikes me as kind of futile, but I do urge you to contact CIA employees and ask them what it's about for them.

Best of luck to you.................

[mmonk]

26. So the Obama administration is going to step in anytime

a former federal employee is sued?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

27. It's not an "Obama administration" matter -

if you look at the dates of the filings, you'll see that it was all done during the Bush administration.

You're trying to nail Obama, but you'll have to find another venue............

[mmonk]

28. You can twist this all you want but the appeal has reached

the Supreme Court level and the Obama administration has filed briefings in support of the defendants instead of staying out of it. I'm not trying to nail Obama, I'm asking why would anybody want to join an organization where the executive branch believes in no consequences for betrayal of your covert status.

As far as asking CIA employees, I'm on a talking basis with three that have now retired. But that doesn't matter because the question is RHETORICAL.

[Mari333]

2. shhh you are supposed to 'look forward'

Valerie Plame? who is that?
what are you trying to do, ruin the feelgood?
:sarcasm:

[Iwillnevergiveup]

4. Hope I live long enough

to see justice done for Valerie Plame Wilson and Don Siegelman.

[mmonk]

5. Hopefully there will be. So far, I think the only chance may be

with Siegelman.

[dgibby]

8. And Sibel. Please don't forget Sibel.

[mmonk]

9. Yes, we must not forget her.

[Bluebear]

10. Pipe down and look at an "eloquent" picture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5707152

[mmonk]

12. LOL

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Or this cute one!

[mmonk]

21. Darn, that is cute.

[LaurenG]

11. I had a friend whose husband worked for the CIA. When he was transferred to Beirut

They recruited her and she only worked temporarily but when she was released after her divorce they absolutely warned her that she had better never discuss what she did and would always always be watching her. She was afraid to ever say more. The CIA will tell you up front that they are loyal to no employee, period.

I don't think this is Obama's baby, I think the hierarchy within the CIA gets the say on who or what goes down. Without a whole lot more pressure I think the CIA will stall this as someone in the upper ranks wants to cover their own but. That is just a guess though.

[mmonk]

13. While they may, I still don't see why the Obama administration

feels compelled to interject itself in a civil suit. Why do they feel that strongly about it? So anyone who ever serves in the executive branch is immune by law for any actions that took place for the rest of their lives?

[LaurenG]

15. Good question - I can't even guess at that.

It's odd to say the least. I always feel as if we only get bits of information though, just enough to satisfy the "journalists" and then they hope we go just away.

[mmonk]

17. Funny when we insist on more.

I asked the question because the answers given are so lacking. I can understand addressing current issues that involve current activity, but not jumping in on something like that and putting the government behind now citizen litigants.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

25. Let me help you, if I can -

when a Federal or government employee is sued, a civil matter, and they are being called to task for something they did while they were "on the job" - that is, not at home, watering the lawn at 8 pm on a Saturday night - then the natural first step is to ascertain if what the employee did that is the subject of the lawsuit was within that employee's job description.

To figure that out, the employer will be deposed, or asked to answer interrogatories, or, in an appellate matter, to file a brief, and within those answers, the court will determine whether or not the employee, when the action that is the subject of the suit was committed, was acting within the boundaries of the aforementioned job description.

If it was, the suit is dismissed. That's what happened in the Plame/Wilson civil suit.

End of lecture on civil procedure.................

[mmonk]

29. Has happened. The appeal is in its last stage.

Save your lectures. The plaintif is asking for damages from these persons individually because they were harmed (or that is what they are suing to prove). I understand the Justice Department supports Cheney et al. It's not like I don't know what is taking place.

[mmonk]

30. I do have a question for you. Were Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

employees of the federal government or not? Where's the Obama briefings supporting their position then (using your logic)?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. I've tried to assist here -

you've been rude.

And now you have a question.

I have an answer for you.

The first word is "Go," the third word is "yourself."

I'm sure you're smart enough - you've demonstrated your genius here - to figure out the rest of it .................

[mmonk]

32. I've been rude in your opinion because I don't agree.

If you want to see rude, read your post back to yourself.

[Garbo 2004]

34. Joe Wilson was not an employee of the Fed gov't at the time. He'd left gov't svs yrs before. nt

[mmonk]

36. All persons in this case are former. I understand Joe wasn't at the time.

During the time in question, Valerie and the defendants were. The retaliation for his telling the truth was aimed to hurt him as well.

[Garbo 2004]

33. IIRC there weren't any depositions/interrogatories in the case. It didn't get that far.

Cheney was represented by private counsel. Filed motion to dismiss. Case was dismissed against all defendants.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. Is that how it went?

I didn't follow it, so thanks for the information.

That matter is gonna haunt some Americans forever, which is really awful.

Anyway, thanks.............

[suchadeal]

14. People join The Company because they don't think it will...

happen to them. Bad things only happen to bad people, not "me."

[mmonk]

16. You may be onto something.

[KoKo]

35. K&R...

[mmonk]

38. I wonder what kind of signal this Justice Department was trying

to send by filing a brief of support for Cheney, Rove, Libby, Armitage et al? Especially in light with all the other stands it has taken.