Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records - Page 3

American · 07-18-08, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

*sigh* Another poster added to my ignore list.

Another poster putting their fingers in both ears and saying "Lalalalalalala".

Binary_Digit · 07-18-08, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

The other was either Karl Rove or Scooter Libby but they didn't leak it they only confirmed it, once Armitage leaked the name no further leakage could occur.

1. Karl Rove talked about Palme with Matt Cooper, not Novak.
2. Scooter Libby talked about Plame with Judith Miller, not Novak.
3. The statement "once Armitage leaked the name no further leakage could occur" is absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

And long before that the CIA itself outed her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Executive Privilege can not be overruled unless the prosecutor can prove that the testimony is pertinent to proving a crime but since no crime even occurred due to the fact that Plame's name had been leaked long before Bush was in office that will be quite impossible.

Again that doesn't matter one bit. 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. It's really that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolguy

Fact: After a lengthy investigation, no crime of having revealed Plame's status has ever been charged.

Of course nobody has been charged with a crime. That's because "Scooter" Libby lied his ass off and obstructed the investigation!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolguy

All we have is speculation that the Admin did something nefarious.
Yet when one looks at all the facts regarding the issue it is clear that there is more credence to it being nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt.
And yes, I realize that there is speculation on this side of the coin too, yet that speculation has more to back it up than anything possibly done by the Admin.

Yes, there's a lot of speculation on both sides, but the fact remains the President is obstructing the very investigation that could put the speculation to rest with his claim of executive privilege.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolguy

You might want to look up what is a defense to the charge and see why it changes everything before you read what follows.

Right, the person leaking has to know that what he's leaking is classified information. That changes nothing. Until Novak's 2nd source is revealed and determined to have been ignorant of her covert status, this investigation is totally appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolguy

The bottom line is that Plame had already been exposed and the reason why they can not charge Wilson with it is the same reason they can't charge anyone in the Admin.

If Wilson outed her too then he needs to be charged with leaking. I don't care who it is, you don't knowingly leak classified information to people who aren't authorized to have it. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolguy

Simply saying someone works for the CIA isn't outing them unless they were covert.

She was covert! CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed it!

section eight · 07-18-08, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

1. Karl Rove talked about Palme with Matt Cooper, not Novak.
2. Scooter Libby talked about Plame with Judith Miller, not Novak.
3. The statement "once Armitage leaked the name no further leakage could occur" is absurd.

No it's not it's called the law, you can't leak someones name which has already been leaked.

Quote:

Again that doesn't matter one bit. Her employment at the CIA was classified.

Doesn't matter once her name was leaked it was leaked it can not be unleaked and once its leaked no other people can be held legally liable for leaking it. Besides you have no evidence that either Rove or Libby leaked the name because they only confirmed Armitage's story, and Armitage isn't guilty because the CIA leaked her name long ago.

Quote:

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. It's really that simple.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, once her name was leaked by the CIA to the Cubans through the Swiss embassy in Havana no law could be broken by revealing her name (see section 422 of title 50, U.S. Code).

Quote:

Section 422. Defenses and exceptions

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent
It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
that 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.
(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person
committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be
subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or
4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to
commit an offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who
acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify
and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, or (B) in the case of a person who
has authorized access to classified information.
(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to
transmit information described in such section directly to either
congressional intelligence committee.
(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an
individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself
as a covert agent.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ction_422.html

So either the CIA first leaked the name, or Armitage first leaked the name, either way Rove and Libby are off the hook.

Binary_Digit · 07-18-08, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

No it's not it's called the law, you can't leak someones name which has already been leaked.

Regardless of the leak to Cuba almost 20 years ago, Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent was not public knowledge when Novak published his article. Novak's article exposed Brewer Jennings Associates, a CIA front company charged with conterproliferation of WMDs and nuclear weapons. If the CIA agreed with you, they wouldn't have had her working at Brewer Jennings. The CIA doesn't agree with you. Her CIA status was classified when Novak's article came out, and nothing you say can ever change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Doesn't matter once her name was leaked it was leaked it can not be unleaked and once its leaked no other people can be held legally liable for leaking it.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, once her name was leaked by the CIA to the Cubans through the Swiss embassy in Havana no law could be broken by revealing her name (see section 422 of title 50, U.S. Code).

I held a Secret clearance in the U.S. Navy and I can tell you for a fact that some ridiculous alaby claiming that someone else leaked the same information you did wouldn't wash at all. Both heads would roll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

Besides you have no evidence that either Rove or Libby leaked the name because they only confirmed Armitage's story, and Armitage isn't guilty because the CIA leaked her name long ago.

So either the CIA first leaked the name, or Armitage first leaked the name, either way Rove and Libby are off the hook.

I never claimed that Rove or Libby leaked to Novak, you must have me confused with someone else. All I'm saying is that this investigation is legitimate and the President is willfully obstructing it.

section eight · 07-18-08, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Regardless of the leak to Cuba almost 20 years ago, Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent was not public knowledge when Novak published his article. Novak's article exposed Brewer Jennings Associates, a CIA front company charged with conterproliferation of WMDs and nuclear weapons. If the CIA agreed with you, they wouldn't have had her working at Brewer Jennings. The CIA doesn't agree with you. Her CIA status was classified when Novak's article came out, and nothing you say can ever change that.

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. Once her name was leaked by the CIA it could not be leaked again thus no crime was committed, now as to your point that it wasn't public knowledge (which in actuality is irrelevant) 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, 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 left thought they had their watergate on Bush, they were wrong.

Quote:

I held a Secret clearance in the U.S. Navy and I can tell you for a fact that some ridiculous alaby claiming that someone else leaked the same information you did wouldn't wash at all. Both heads would roll.

Not legally as per Section 422 of U.S. Code Title 50.

Quote:

I never claimed that Rove or Libby leaked to Novak, you must have me confused with someone else. All I'm saying is that this investigation is legitimate and the President is willfully obstructing it.

For there to be an obstruction of justice case a crime must have been committed, no crime = no obstruction of justice.

Binary_Digit · 07-18-08, 01:35 PM

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.

section eight · 07-18-08, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

The United States never publicly acknowledged or revealed Plame's CIA status. The leak to Cuba was not a public acknowledgment at all.

Again that is completely irrelevant. Furthermore; if you falsely believe that section 422 hinges on it being public knowledge then guess what? Wilson and Armitage were both members of the U.S. government and they did make it public knowledge when they talked to the press.

Quote:

Would you be okay with nuclear secrets being leaked to Iran even though the same secrets were leaked to China years ago??

This isn't about nuclear secrets the legal case in question refers specifically to under cover intel operatives.

Quote:

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.

Again that is irrelevant, but again even if that were the case it became public knowledge when Wilson and Armitage started telling it to the press.

Quote:

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.

Irrelevant her name was already divulged first by the CIA, then by Wilson, and then finally by Armitage, thus no crime.

Quote:

It was against the law to reveal her name and employment at the CIA.

Not according to section 422 of U.S. Code Title 50, because her name had already been revealed prior to the Novak article.

Quote:

Her CIA status was classified when Novak's article came out, and nothing you say can ever change that. It's really that simple.

It really isn't, because no crime could have occurred since that information was already leaked before the Novak article came out, the public is not the concern here the concern is hostile foreign governments like the one in Cuba finding out about the identities of covert agents, so to assert that Section 422 applies to only the American public and not to foreign governments is quite frankly ridiculous..

Quote:

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:

A COMPLETE DEFENSE?
The defense in Section 422 requires that the revelation by the United States have been done "publicly." At least one U.S. official who spoke to Gertz speculated that because the Havana snafu was not "publicized" — i.e., because the classified information about Plame was mistakenly communicated to Cuba rather than broadcast to the general public — it would not available as a defense to whomever spoke with Novak. But that seems clearly wrong.

First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak. Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the general public is beside the point — the violation supposedly lies in identifying Plame to Novak. (Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources even though she never wrote an article about Plame.)

Perhaps more significantly, the whole point of discouraging public disclosure of covert agents is to prevent America's enemies from degrading our national security. It is not, after all, the public we are worried about. Rather, it is the likes of Fidel Castro and his regime who pose a threat to Valerie Plame and her network of U.S. intelligence relationships. The government must still be said to have "publicized" the classified relationship — i.e., to have blown the cover of an intelligence agent — if it leaves out the middleman by communicating directly with an enemy government rather than indirectly through a media outlet.

Andrew C. McCarthy on Valerie Plame on National Review Online

Quote:

I agree with most of that. All except for "(which it doesn't)" and I think I covered why.

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.

A crime was committed, which exposed a covert CIA agent and the entire front company that she worked for.

But you just said that Armitage was off the hook because he didn't know she was covert, so even if you are asserting that the CIA's inadvertent disclosure doesn't count because it wasn't disclosed to the American public then you must admit that it did become public knowledge as soon as Armitage talked to Novak, but since Armitage is off the hook then where is the crime and who committed it?

jallman · 07-18-08, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

What is tragically funny is the fact that the very same people that will defend Bush are the same ones that defend the Patriot Act and FISA by saying, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." What's Bush worried about?

He's not worried about anything. The executive branch has classification authority. They can set what is and is not classified information at will per executive orders 12958 and 13292 (which grants the VP the same power as the POTUS when dealing with classified information). He not only has privilege over the whole thing; he's not subject to anyone else's authority over the issue.

cascadian · 07-18-08, 03:29 PM

I don't see how the Cubans intercepting classified CIA documents qualifies as "the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed". I would like to see this opinion argued in front of a judge TYVM.

jallman · 07-18-08, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian

I don't see how the Cubans intercepting classified CIA documents qualifies as "the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed". I would like to see this opinion argued in front of a judge TYVM.

He doesn't have to argue it in front of a judge. He has privilege and total authority over what is classified and what isn't.