If a CIA agents name was released by Wikileaks SDept cable would it have been ok?

[xultar]

Would he still be a hero?

I just want to know what you guys think about that?

I'm not judging I just thought about it and I find it intriguing.

[midnight]

1. I want to know if it would be FAIR GAME?

[xultar]

2. I don't understand what you mean. You know kettle one on an empty stomach & all...

[MadHound]

3. Given what the CIA has done in the past and present,

I hope he releases every goddamn one of their names from the day of the CIA's inception until now. The fact of the matter is that the CIA is a cancer on our country and it should have been excised long ago. But the last man who tried to do that was shot, publicly executed, and thus the CIA have been allowed free rein to spread their lies and poison throughout the world and across the decades.

If Assange brings the CIA down in ruins, I will be the first to applaud him.

Any other questions?

[xultar]

5. So you are ok with the Valerie Plame thing and what was done to her? I mean regardless

Of why it was done...it was done so based on what you say itnis a good thing.

[MadHound]

15. How many lives did Plame's actions cost over the years?

How many innocents died due to her actions. Yet she is alive, well off and walking around free. Her career was ruined, yes, but in the balance I think that she paid little for her sins.

[xultar]

18. Do we know all of what she and her contacts did? I don't know. Is she allowed

To say?

So Cheny is a hero for leaking?

Weren't we mad @ him for leaking her name?

[MadHound]

22. She was CIA, do you know what they do?

In the words of the CIA's first "super spy," Edward Lansdale, the CIA is there for "fun and games," to "raise hell and make war." Wherever they turn their attention, death and destruction soon follow. Plame may have never directly killed somebody, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that her actions have killed innocents, either abroad or at home. That is the nature of the CIA, that is what they do, that is why they were formed, to foment war and destruction, the better to pad the pockets of the military industrial complex.

Was Cheney a hero, no, but in reality this was all intermural, internecine political games. Cheney wasn't a good guy, but neither was Plame, blood is on both their hands. While you might have been outraged over Cheney's actions, I laughed watching the sharks fight amongst each other.

Meanwhile, in Central and SW Asia, there are still bodies that Plame helped put there. She's CIA, that's what they do, leave the bodies of the innocents behind in their wake, bodies by the millions.

I would suggest that for further reading you take up the following books: Alfred McCoy, "The Politics of Heroin". Christopher Simpson, "Blowback: The First Full Account of America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Disastrous Effect on The cold war, Our Domestic and Foreign Policy." And L Fletcher Prouty's seminal work, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy."

The CIA is not an agency that operates for the good of this country. The CIA's role is to stir up conflict so that the folks in the MIC get their blood money. I have no sympathy or empathy for those who sign up for such a vile organization.

[Angry Dragon]

4. No, it would not be okay

[xultar]

7. Why?

[Angry Dragon]

11. I think that would put their life in danger

I am one of the first ones to get angry over abuses of power.
No matter what party nor what organization.
I would assume the outed party would be out in the field
so I think this would be very dangerous for the agent.

One poster was very pointed in their dislike of the cia.
I think there might be other ways to bring them under control.
No ideas at this time but I would hope there were better ways.

[purrFect]

6. If the agent was committing crimes, then Yes.

But, not to the authorities... Of course.

However, they haven't done any such thing, and even offered to work with the authorities to ensure no national security secrets were inadvertently revealed... Yet they declined.

FYI

[xultar]

8. ????

[gateley]

9. No - I don't think that any name should be included that could put that person

in danger, whether I agree with what that person does or not.

Do they 'proof' them, do you know, to ensure something like that doesn't occur?

[Swamp Rat]

10. What if the CIA agents tortured people, raped children, sold women as sex slaves, trafficked drugs?

What if they sold weapons of mass destruction?

What if?

[xultar]

12. But what if they didn't? It's just names and the fact that they are agents. We were so angry

Because Cheny did it.

We don't know all of what Plame did, or what her people did.....

What makes Assange a hero and Cheny not in this regard?

[OnyxCollie]

16. But cheney released the name

to get back at Joe Wilson, and to blow the Brewster/Jennings operation, thereby removing the monitor of Iran's nuclear capability.

Assassination and collateral damage are not the same things.

[xultar]

19. But if I knock over an old woman to catch a child molester it is all good in the end right?

What if the old lady died are we still all good?

[OnyxCollie]

21. Mens Rea - Modern Culpability Levels

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1585/Mens-Rea-Modern-culpability-levels.html

Four levels of culpability: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (from highest to lowest).

Under the Code, the highest level of culpability is "purpose." A person acts "purposely" with respect to a result if her conscious object is to cause such a result. While the criminal law generally treats a person's motive as irrelevant, the requirement of "purpose" is essentially a requirement that the person have a particular motive for acting, albeit a narrowly defined motive. The requirement does not make motive generally relevant, but only asks whether one specific motive was present, such as the purpose to gain sexual satisfaction required by the offense of indecent exposure. Thus, "flashing" another in order to surprise or annoy would not satisfy the required purpose and would not support liability for the offense.

In contrast to "purpose," which requires the person's conscious object to cause the result, a person acts only "knowingly" if she does not hope for the result but is practically certain that her conduct will cause it. The antiwar activist who sets a bomb to destroy draft board offices may be practically certain that the bomb will kill the night watchman yet may wish that the watchman would go on coffee break and not be killed. The essence of the narrow distinction between purpose and knowledge is the presence of a positive desire to cause the result as opposed to knowledge of its near certainty. In the broader sense, the distinction divides the vague notion of maliciousness or viciousness from the slightly less objectionable callousness.

In contrast to "knowingly," a person acts "recklessly" if she is aware only of a substantial risk of causing the result. The narrow distinction between knowledge and recklessness lies in the degree of risk—"practically certain" versus "substantial risk"—of which the person is aware. The distinction marks the dividing line between what we tend to scold as careless (recklessness and negligence) and what we condemn as intentional (purposely and knowingly). In a very rough sense, the distinction between purpose and knowing, on the one hand, and reckless and negligent, on the other, also appropriates the common law distinction between specific intent and general intent.

In contrast to acting "recklessly," which requires a person consciously to disregard a substantial risk, a person acts only "negligently" if she is unaware of a substantial risk of which she should have been aware. If it never occurs to a person that her conduct creates a prohibited risk, such as causing death, she can at most be held negligent in causing the death. Nor can negligent culpability be elevated to recklessness if the person is only cognizant of a risk of causing lesser injury. Absent a special rule, causing death while being aware of a risk of injury, but not death, will result in liability for negligent homicide, but not reckless homicide.

Given your original hypothetical scenario, where do you think Assange would be?

[gateley]

20. Cheney did it as payback to Wilson for telling the truth about the situation

(or lack thereof) in Iraq. His motivation was oil, and he was willing to out an American citizen in the service of her country to discredit her husband so he could further his own agenda. This man was the fucking Vice President of the United States! He betrayed his own people whom he took an oath to protect.

That's the difference. I'm not sure I understand exactly what motive Assange has, but I do know it's not to illegally invade a country, offer up his citizens in sacrifice for the sake of power and money.

[alittlelark]

13. I think the reason it takes so long for the info

to be released is that they try to make sure that nothing DIRE is included.

[EFerrari]

14. Yep. So far Wikileaks has been more careful

than the government with the safety of others. They are not perfect and as Greenwald pointed out today, they're only four years old.

[Poll_Blind]

17. (Yawn)...Wake me when they do. n/t

PB

[RandySF]

23. If NOC's or sources were outed

No, I would not be supportive of those specific files being released.