Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Media Talking Point: Outing Plame was Not Illegal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:25 PM
Original message
Media Talking Point: Outing Plame was Not Illegal
There are some talking points going around that what was done to Plame is not technicaly illegal.

I've seen some of the arguments in editorials. I could be wrong, but these arguments seem to rely on misrepresentations of what really ocurred.

In a nutshell, what are the best arguments for both sides?

Is there a good argument that what happened was perfectly legal?

Some links or actual law that anyone dug up would be great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mourningdove92 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Legal Schmegal
Smirk said he would fire anyone involved. I want to see him do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I understand the politcs- I want the legal schmegal stuff.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obreaslan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. What does...
Smeagol have to do with it? :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. TWO laws violate - the 80's law may be too technical - or not -but
the WW1 law is clear on the simple act of leaking classified material.

The Bush Plane trip and the (Sec of State's staff) memo being read by everyone on board plus the memo saying Ms. Wilson was a forbidden topic would seem to meet the 80's law criteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. What about all this "she was not on assignment and covert" business
Seems to me that excuse twists the actual facts- but what do you know about that media talking point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Makes no difference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Errr- details? Argument? Pretty please?
???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. She has worked covertly
in a CIA front company. She was exposed. Agents from other countries around the world I'm sure immediately began traces and contacts. Once exposed, an agent can be in danger. The front company exposed is in danger along with all associated with it. All foreign contacts with her or the front company are in danger. All operations of that front company become compromised. She nor any agents involved can be used covertly anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulGroom Donating Member (331 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It would be easier to respond
If you'd post some links. I've been following this story closely and know the statutes pretty well, so if you can point me to the statements I can try to deal with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sure- and thanks in advance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Washington Post...
trying to protect Novak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. good point :-) Indeed a Fox News Victoria Toensing article !! :-)
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 12:43 PM by papau
The Fox News Victoria Toensing article was shown to be a lie long ago!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yes - she had 40 some folks plus ran a fake company at the time
of the outing.

Indeed the fake company outing alone caused changes in overseas relationships.

It will take a Republican Judge to say that you can not be covert overseas from a desk in Virgina - indeed the clock counting even with that interpretation does not work without a Republican Judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Are you saying that she does not need to be physically overseas...
...but since folks under her were, that counts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. The statue was applied to fellow who caused the80's death of a
station chief overseas - and that fellow plead quilty. That is the only case on record.

I have no clue how the words would apply in a GOP judges court in a contested case.

As to English interpretation of the words, IMHO the statue applies to Cheney/Scooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbonkowski Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Yes, for five years..
..after a NOC (non-official cover i.e. secret) agent comes home, the fact of their employment at the Agency is kept secret under law.

This is to protect any other agents or local sources who were working with them overseas.

All other Agency employees who also worked at the overseas front company with Plame were also outed at the same time (especially the ones who still were working there), as well as any locals who regularly met with them. So, revealing her name endangered overseas agents and operations, even if she was "safely sitting at a desk in Langley, VA."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
13. There is more than a violation of the law
against outing a CIA agent here. There is a violation of the Espionage Act. US Code 18, Sec. 793 and 794.

Summarizing this law: If you share classified information that can harm the national security of the US with any person not authorized to have it, you are guilty of espionage against the country, an act of treason, which in this case, as to my reading of 794 could draw the death penalty, since the info in question deals with WMD.

If you receive classified info, even though you are not allowed to have it, and then you share it, you too are guilty of espionage. The most likely penalty, however, for these rogues should they be found guilty and not receive a presidential pardon would be the 10 years in prison and the hefty fine.

18USC793--here:

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?W...

18USC794---here:

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?W...

Also, if you know that someone has committed such crime and try to cover it up--Bush? Cheney? you too get classified as a spy, even though you may not have seen the classified info. Per sec. 792 of same code:

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?W...

-----------------------------

All of this means that Miller, Cooper, Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell (who was the one who brought the classified info on AF1 on Bush's trip to Africa) Novak, anyone who received the info and passed it on to unauthorized persons, can be indicted, convicted and sentenced.

If Fitzgerald is considering this law, and not just the "outing" law that RWers want to talk about as "technically" not being broken, then the house of cards is coming down. Fitz will turn into "Monty Hall" and they all will be playing "Let's Make a Deal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. God - I hope Fitz is using that law!
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. The revealing of the classified information...
shut down a CIA front company that was infiltrating in dangerous places...it put every employee working there in danger, and compromised national security. ESPIONAGE & TREASON are the words of the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
20. I'm sure Fitzgerald would not have pursued things if it was legal
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. That's Crapola
Long ago, in a past life, I worked on Govt. contracts for a defense contractor. I had a security clearance. I doubt that things have changed. Here's what they drummed into us about security laws:
a. Your security clearance entitles you to receive classified materials ONLY ABOUT WHICH YOU HAVE A NEED TO KNOW.
b. If you possess such classified materials (and they are always clearly marked as with the State Dept. memo distributed on Air Force One), you may share them ONLY with people you have verified
1. to have the same or higher security clearance AND
2. have a specific NEED TO KNOW the information being received.

ANYTHING ELSE, and you have committed a security violation. Period.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. It was clearly illegal
and anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand criminal law- or is simply lying. Take your pick:

Here's a great article that'll tell you exactly why.

How to Prosecute the Plame Case
by Elizabeth de la Vega

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0812-22.htm

Elizabeth de la Vega has recently retired after serving more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Minneapolis and San Jose. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
23. Sounds Treasonous to me.
Since when is treason not illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC