Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[Truthmatters]

Armitage didnt have access to the same materials the others did and did not know Plame was covert.

 

[DeadCanDance]

LOL, if Armitage "outed" her and has ADMITTED it, why are you and others insisting it was a nefarious plot by the White House? And you have JUST admitted Libby was prosecuted in an attempt to scare him into rolling over on someone more important.

Did you even consider that he couldn't roll on someone because the charge was incorrect?

Fact: Top officials of the Bush adminstration leaked classified information about a covert CIA officer, to the media.

Fact: Rove and Libby then lied about it. They told america, through Bush's press spokesperson, that they weren't involved in leaking Plame's name.

Fact: A CIA front-company (Brewster Jennings) and the identity of a CIA covert officer were blown.

 

[CockySOB]

so..again.... do you honestly think that the Director of Central Intelligence does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

I think the DCI is refusing to state on the record whether he thinks Plame was a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes. I readily acknowledge that he is willing to state she is covert according to the definition used internally at the CIA, but that definition does NOT equate to the statutory definition. The only way I see it being resolved in through a legal finding of fact in Federal court. Why is this a problem? Why can't the CIA come flat out and say, "sure! we'll provide evidence to a Federal judge that we met the statutory requirements which qualify Plame as a covert intelligence agent per the IIPA." Where's the problem with this? Can't the CIA request this be done in such a manner that the hearing itself is sealed and only the verdict presented? That verdict would be the legal finding of fact which would once and for all determine if an actual violation of the IIPA could have occurred.

Some people are so willing to believe that Plame was covert without actually investigating whether she truly WAS covert per the law.

We hold other criminal proceedings to a higher standard of proof than. "well, this law enforcement agent said, '...'" don't we? And don't we leave the ruling on such decisions up to the judiciary to protect the balance of power in criminal matters for a reason? All I'm saying is, "let's finish the investigation and bring it before a judge to decide if an actual crime was committed." Anything less is contrary to the rule of law, an un-American.

That said understand this - if a court rules she was a covert agent per the US Codes, then by all means let's continue investigating until we find out who told what to whom and violated the law. I want to protect our intelligence assets as much as anyone, but I also have this little fear that the real power cabal isn't in either political party, but in the long-term intelligence officials who have remained in their positions for decades and owkr the world scene unseen.

 

[CockySOB]

What are you talking about SGT?

There is a law regarding the outing of a covert agent.

Pertaining to that law, there are definitions of the specific terms used in a separate section, which includes the definition of covert.

also in a separate section of that Law, it says the USA gvt must Acknowledge to the Justice Dept/Investigating prosecutor the covert status of the agent outed, before the prosecutor can bring an investigative case and indictment against the "outers".

Specific citation of the title and Section of the US Codes which you are using please. Where EXACTLY does it say what you claim?

 

[CockySOB]

Fact: Top officials of the Bush adminstration leaked classified information about a covert CIA officer, to the media.

Fact: Rove and Libby then lied about it. They told america, through Bush's press spokesperson, that they weren't involved in leaking Plame's name.

Fact: A CIA front-company (Brewster Jennings) and the identity of a CIA covert officer were blown.

Fact: DeadCanDance hasn't the foggiest clue about what constitutes a legal fact

Fact: DeadCanDance apparently believes that the words "fact" and "opinion" are interchangeable

Fact: DeadCanDance is on his own faith-based crusade, tilting at windmills in a manner to shame even Don Quixote

 

[Truthmatters]

Not one ounce of proof she doesnt qualify as covert huh?

Congress has accepted the testimony of the CIA that she was covert now you tell me WHO has the right to demand any court examine the facts and WHY they would?

You see your bullshit is not going to fool anyone.

Why are you attempting to protect the people who would USE our countries safety for political gain?

 

[CockySOB]

Not one ounce of proof she doesnt qualify as covert huh?

Congress has accepted the testimony of the CIA that she was covert now you tell me WHO has the right to demand any court examine the facts and WHY they would?

You see your bullshit is not going to fool anyone.

Why are you attempting to protect the people who would USE our countries safety for political gain?

Burden of proof lies with the government to show that she was covert under the law, IN a court of law. Until then, everything is pure speculation and opinion. Plame might well have been covert per the law, but without a finding of fact, there's no way to know for certain.

That's the problem. Why won't the CIA simply file a motion asking the court to determine whether Plame was covert under the law or not? It'd be the quickest, easiest and most definite way to end the dispute. The motion could even request the proceedings be sealed to protect whatever "classified" information they would need to show the court in order to allow the judge to make the decision. Unless of course, the CIA was unsure of whether Plame actually WAS covert per the law, in which case it might want the whole issue to stay OUT of court to prevent such a determination going against their position, of course.

America is a nation of laws, governed by the rule of law. If you want to lynch people based on pure speculation, you are refuting the rule of law in preference of anarchy and mob rule. Is that what you're advocating?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Burden of proof lies with the government to show that she was covert under the law, IN a court of law. Until then, everything is pure speculation and opinion. Plame might well have been covert per the law, but without a finding of fact, there's no way to know for certain.

That's the problem. Why won't the CIA simply file a motion asking the court to determine whether Plame was covert under the law or not? It'd be the quickest, easiest and most definite way to end the dispute. The motion could even request the proceedings be sealed to protect whatever "classified" information they would need to show the court in order to allow the judge to make the decision. Unless of course, the CIA was unsure of whether Plame actually WAS covert per the law, in which case it might want the whole issue to stay OUT of court to prevent such a determination going against their position, of course.

America is a nation of laws, governed by the rule of law. If you want to lynch people based on pure speculation, you are refuting the rule of law in preference of anarchy and mob rule. Is that what you're advocating?

Libby isn't being "lynched on pure speculation". He was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

[CockySOB]

Libby isn't being "lynched on pure speculation". He was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

If you recall, I agreed with that. He was found guilty of perjury, making false statements and obstruction in a court of law. Ergo, he committed those crimes as a fact of law. I've neveer argued against that, and I've even gone as far as to say he should NOT receive a Presidential pardon. Of course, there's a good chance he will, but he shouldn't. If you or I committed those crimes, we'd be doing time.

But all this to-do about Plame being covert under the law is speculation as it has not been determined so in a court of law. That's what I was talking about.

 

[Edward]

If you have any definitive, legal proof that Plame was a covert agent per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.), please present it.

If you don't, none of the rest of this bullshit amounts to anything more than that which comes from a cow's ass.

In this case, repetition appears to be perpetuating the lie into myth.

She worked in "counterintelligence" and "counterrorism" and traveled outside of the United States during her tenure at the CIA. This gives her protection under the Intelligence Protection Act. So, let's focus upon the provisions of the statute and not your opinion. Valarie Plame "intelligence relationship" with the CIA was classified even though her working there was not classified. The identity of people who travel to and from CIA headquarters cannot be kept secret and the point being made about the CIA switchboard identifying her as working there is somehow support for her not being a covert operative is ludicrous. The conclusion that foreign agents would draw from a denial is that the CIA has a reason to deny her working relationship and the obvious reason for a denial is that she is covert. So the best way to keep the covert status of an agent classified is to not deny that they work at the CIA when asked.

Also, the intelligence relationship of the majority of covert operatives who work at the CIA is classified while them actually working there isn't. If you buy the cloak and dagger shit that you read in books and see in the movies that covert operatives are tucked away in some house until they are called into duty then you are a retard since covert operatives drive into and out of Langley on a regular basis and there is no way to keep their employment at the CIA secret therefore the CIA instead chooses to acknowledge them as being employees while classifying their covert status. Once a covert agent walks into CIA Headquarters their intelligence function is classified but anyone can observe them going to work so denying that they work there would compromise their intelligence relationship to the CIA. A foreign agent learning that the CIA denied that Valarie Plame worked for them would know that she was a covert operative based on the fact that she is known to work there. Once you accept that the term "covert" does not mean "secret" but instead is a description of the responsibilities of an agent then we can discuss the merits of your arguments but until you can accept hard facts instead of providing nothing more than your opinion your opinion amounts to just that.

The law states that a "United States citizens whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information" and who "resides or acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency is protected under the statute. There is no way you can argue based on the facts that her intelligence relationship was not classified and that she did not act outside of the United States during her tenure in a covert division of the CIA. To help you to understand the law I will reference the part that applies to Valarie Plame.

The term “covert agent” means—....

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

First, Valarie Plame's intelligence relationship at the CIA was classified and if you can prove that the CIA was telling people that she worked in the covert division dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction than you might have a point but she worked as a covert operative within the CIA and that relationship was classified. Her actually working there does not have to be classified for this provision to be in affect. The provision dealing with classifying the "identity" of employes of the CIA and which provides a time frame of five years does not apply since her identity as an employee of the CIA was not classified while her intelligence relationship was. The provision that applies is the provision dealing with her "intelligence relationship" to the CIA being classified (i.e., a covert operative within the covert division that deals with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction) and the administration releasing and confirming this information was a violation of the law. To release information that puts her in the middle of the decision-making process of a covert division of the CIA endangers her and those she works directly with. You can repeat your opinion that she was not a covert operative but the facts indicate that she was and if she wasn't then the CIA doesn't have covert operatives since her intelligence relationship to the CIA fits the definition of covert.

Second, it is also obvious that she has acted and does act ouside of the United States as an agent for the CIA. The five year provision does not apply here since that provision applies to her identity as working for the CIA and not to her intelligence relationship to the agency. One can be classified and the other unclassified. The 5 year provision is to keep the CIA from keeping the identity of people who work at the CIA secret for their entire life but this provision doesn't apply to the classified job duties of Valarie Plame which were released and which identified her as working in a covert division at the CIA. That relationship was classified (i.e., the administration could have said that Plame worked at the CIA and would not have broken the law since it was known that she worked there but they could not identify her as working within a covert division of the CIA dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction which they did).

 

[Edward]

I'm afraid it IS up for debate since it appears that Plame being "under cover" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That is unless you are aware of a special set of rules that apply only to HER cover, but not every other undercover CIA operative.

Is the CIA question rhetorical? Were their lips moving?

You are an idiot. Valarie Plame worked for the Directorate of Operations specifically be tasked to the Counterproliferation Division of that Directorate. You can try to say that a woman who worked in a covert division of the CIA wasn't covert but that makes you a fucking retard. You can repeatedly assert that someone who worked in a covert division (and I suspect you can't name a single person whom she worked with in the Counterproliferation Divions because it is a covert division) of the CIA isn't a covert operative under the law in question but that only makes you look retarded. It often takes someone being offensive enough to call someone a fucking retard for them to wake the hell up and use some common sense and I am glad to call your fucking retarded opinion that a covert operative within a covert division of a covert directorate of the CIA exactly what it is.

 

[Bern80]

Yeah it's the return of Edward. Here's my best impression:

"Fucking, retard, fucking fucking, idiot, incorherrent thought, retard, retard, retard, idiot, fucking, idiot, retard, incorherrent thought, fucking."

How'd I do?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The thing is it was not just Armitage.

He was spared prosecution because he didnt know wshe was covert.

The others who did out her knew she was covert.

If you commit a crime and others commit the same crime does that mean only one should be prosecuted?

LOL, what a crock of shit... remind me again how Libby was charged with disclosing her covert status.... ohh wait, he didn't, he was NEVER charged with that. I wonder why? I mean you and the other left wing whackos INSIST he did it and did it on purpose, further that there is no doubt he knew she was a covert agent. I guess the Prosecutor was just covering for the President right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Armitage, Rove, and Libby all independently blabbed to reporters about Plame's classified status.

Thats a lie, NONE of them blabbed about her "classified" status because NONE of them knew she was considered a covert agent. AGAIN please show the charge and conviction of Libby for doing this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Libby isn't being "lynched on pure speculation". He was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Yet NOT of outing Plume. Thus the WHOLE " she was not covert" followed by calling Bullshit to the left wing nut jobs claiming A) the Vice President ordered it B) He thus is a traitor and C) Anyone KNOWINGLY told anyone else Plume was Covert or even knew she was.

I keep asking IF she was Covert, WHY did the switchboard at Langley tell a reporter calling to verify her status as working at the CIA that she INDEED was an employee there? Why hasn't that operator been charged with disclosing the identity of a Covert agent?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Claiming that to protect a covert status the CIA readily acknowledges their covert agents work for the CIA is the most idiotic claim I have EVER heard.

 

[Edward]

LOL, what a crock of shit... remind me again how Libby was charged with disclosing her covert status.... ohh wait, he didn't, he was NEVER charged with that. I wonder why? I mean you and the other left wing whackos INSIST he did it and did it on purpose, further that there is no doubt he knew she was a covert agent. I guess the Prosecutor was just covering for the President right?

Not being charged with a crime doesn't mean that a person did not commit that crime but only that it was decided that they shouldn't be prosecuted. You can call me a left wing whacko you stupid ass motherfucker but it doesn't change the fact that you are a traitor and I don't care what your opinion is since it is the opinion of a retard. I don't care if you hold office or if you are George Bush himself because the fact remains your opinion is just that. The opinion of a retard who can't provide any supporting evidence for his position. I wait for proof of everything you just said but I suspect you will give me more of the same.

 

[Bern80]

Not being charged with a crime doesn't mean that a person did not commit that crime but only that it was decided that they shouldn't be prosecuted. You can call me a left wing whacko you stupid ass motherfucker but it doesn't change the fact that you are a traitor and I don't care what your opinion is since it is the opinion of a retard. I don't care if you hold office or if you are George Bush himself because the fact remains your opinion is just that. The opinion of a retard who can't provide any supporting evidence for his position. I wait for proof of everything you just said but I suspect you will give me more of the same.

Pretty dead on wasn't I.

 

[Edward]

Thats a lie, NONE of them blabbed about her "classified" status because NONE of them knew she was considered a covert agent. AGAIN please show the charge and conviction of Libby for doing this.

You couldn't be anymore stupid. If they were dumb enough not to know that a covert agent who worked in a covert division of a covert directorate of the CIA then they are as retarded as you and you might as well be them because you are dumb enough to think that someone whoseresponsibilites are covert isn't a covert agent. Of course this can be expectd from retards like you.

 

[Bern80]

You couldn't be anymore stupid. If they were dumb enough not to know that a covert agent who worked in a covert division of a covert directorate of the CIA then they are as retarded as you and you might as well be them because you are dumb enough to think that someone whoseresponsibilites are covert isn't a covert agent. Of course this can be expectd from retards like you.

Man, could you be any more predictable?