Quote:
Originally Posted by section eight  I don't care if the CIA agrees or not all I care about is the law and the law clearly states that it is a defense if "before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is the basis for the prosecution," it doesn't get any clearer than that. |
The United States
never publicly acknowledged or revealed Plame's CIA status. The leak to Cuba was not a public acknowledgment at all.
Would you be okay with nuclear secrets being leaked to Iran even though the same secrets were leaked to China years ago??
Quote:
Originally Posted by section eight Once her name was leaked by the CIA it could not be leaked again thus no crime was committed, |
That's where you're wrong. If it were public knowledge like it is today then you'd have a point, but it was not public knowledge.
Her employment at the CIA was classified. She had been covert in the last 5 years. The CIA was taking specific steps to conceal her identity. It was against the law to reveal her name and employment at the CIA. Her CIA status was classified when Novak's article came out, and nothing you say can ever change that. It's really that simple. Quote:
Originally Posted by section eight now as to your point that it wasn't public knowledge (which in actuality is irrelevant) |
It's completely relevant, how can you say it's not? It says right there in section 422 that if the United States
publicly acknowledged or revealed the information then that is a defense against leaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by section eight well if that is what section 422 hinges upon (which it doesn't) then it did become public knowledge either after Wilson or Plame shopped around their yellow cake story to every media outlet in the country, or after Armitage talked to Novak |
I agree with most of that. All except for "(which it doesn't)" and I think I covered why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by section eight now if they want to prosecute Armitage or Wilson they can be my guest, but that's not going to happen because this was never the point of this spectacle in the first place |
The point of this "spectacle" was to find out who leaked classified information to the press. Armitage is off the hook because he didn't realize Plame was covert. He saw her name on paperwork that doesn't normally contain such information and he made the wrong assumption about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by section eight For there to be an obstruction of justice case a crime must have been committed, no crime = no obstruction of justice. |
A crime
was committed, which exposed a covert CIA agent and the entire front company that she worked for.