Read the code again, especially part ©. That part makes no reference to people having authorized access to the information.
Now, the language about it being a pattern of activity and requiring that the individual know that the United States was actively concealing the identity of the individual might make this part of the code difficult to prosecute. Neverless, it does apply to all, not just government employees or people authorized to have access to the information.
Really? Cause that sounds like classic Rovian spin. What I’ve read is that the source of the leak may have been a classified security document that Colin Powell took on a trip with Bush and other “high administration officials” which detailed the Niger yellowcake investigation and identified Plame as a CIA operative … a non-cover CIA op, which means a REAL spy.
Somebody gonna get locked up for treason before this is over. Don’t think it’ll be Judy Miller. How did SHE get the info? What’s HER security clearance? Is it more likely that an Admin. official with a security clearance could breach her identity, or a reporter?
Methinks it’s the Admin. people.
You should be sorry for trying to foist such bullshit on us. However, you can keep employing the smugness; it only makes it more fun to rip the hell out of it.
From the bullshit in the link smugly provided by Ptolemais:
Care to reconcile that “speculation” with this report from the Washington Post:
I’d say “two top White House officials” offering it up to “at least six Washington journalists” pretty much counts as retailing the information.
That’s a pretty definitive characterization of a cite that begins most of its sentences, “What if…?”
Sorry. What I said stands. Even if every ad-hoc supposition in that post turns out to be true, Rove has been credibly implicated in the issue. He should definitively answer questions and show his innocence, or resign and enjoy the right of every citizen to be innocent until proven guilty.
Mr Moto, my take on that part of the code was that it referred to instances where a person illegally obtained information that was adequately protected (e.g., by breaking into a secure facility). In such a case, the authorized person in possession of the information would probably not be prosecuted, if they met some reasonable standard of trying to protect the information.
If any of the journalists were prosecutable on that, why hasn’t it happened? As far as we know, none of them have, for anything other than not revealing a source.
And none of this changes the fact that (barring one of the journalists committing burglary or the like) someone in government passed the information to the journalist(s).
Rove’s defense so far appears to be that he didn’t actually use Valerie Plame’s name in any conversation. Instead, he merely confirmed that Joe Wilson’s wife works for the CIA. He also claims that he didn’t know of her covert status.
The upshot of the whole thing is that he was making the call to try to convince Cooper that what he (Cooper) was about to write was false, when it fact it was true. Not only did he out a covert agent, he did so in an effort to spread a lie about the reason for the Iraqi war. That’s the bigger underlying issue that really frosts me about the entire thing. The Administration had so little faith in its rationale for going to war that it had to make up some story out of whole cloth and then damage the intelligence efforts of the country when they were going to be called on it.
How anyone could have any faith in any thing Bush Co. said on the slightest issue from here on out is beyond me. If the administration told me tomorrow that the sky was blue and that grass was green I’d doubt every word they said.
Yeah, I read that part, but because of the requirement of a “pattern of activity,” I discounted it: it seems to me that it’s saying you can’t dedicate yourself to exposing these people and then expose them. I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that any journalist in America in the past several decades has done that, and certainly not in this case, so I figured you weren’t saying the journalists had violated that section. Sorry for not being clearer on that point.
Daniel
And if a bull had udders, he’d be a cow. You know now, you knew then, and you’ve known for a long time that the President did not do any such thing - he wouldn’t have said he wanted to get to the bottom of it if he *were * at the bottom of it, would he? Sheesh.
So what could be the reason for that statement of yours - just a hope that your absolute loyalism wouldn’t require you to defend this latest shitpile to yourself? Or a more conscious attempt to defend the indefensible in your self-appointed role as RNC spokesman here?
They were clear enough to those of us not suffering from Kool-Aid poisoning.
But not because he either has committed treason or is an accomplice to someone else who has? That isn’t reason to resign, but a possible conflict of interest is? How about the President - does he have a duty to fire Rove? Where would this duty come from - some legal code, or his own responsibility as the leader of the government? Would you be upset at all about this if it had happened before Bush 1 signed the applicable law into effect? Do you in fact deplore anything at all that doesn’t stem from the law?
Jesus, talk about being unwilling to meet someone half way. Or a third of the way. Or a tenth.
Elvis, your partisan nitpicking is petty, desperate, and embarassing.
Absolutely true. I’m on your side about things, Elvis, and am not usually one to agree with Bricker, but this is just rediculous. Bricker hasn’t, to the best of my recollection, said anything for you to get nearly this upset about. He told us how he intrepreted the law, and now is saying things that you ought to be agreeing with if you’d like some answers from Rove.
You are an embarassment to liberals.
Well, the act was passed after an ex-CIA officer named Philip Agee decided to name agents in books and in a self-published periodical. So there’s one at least.
No, he’s simply doing his usual pettifoggery, respecting nothing but the details of the law wherever they take him. His current statements that I do, in fact, agree with are not derived from a respectable process. You do know how important process vs. result is to him, don’t you?
Those of you shallow enough to be simply keeping score - “This guy said something I agree with, for 1 point! Who cares why he said it? That guy said something I don’t like but can’t find the flaw with, so -1 for saying it and -1 more for making me feel stupid!” have more reason to be embarrassed.
I don’t know any such thing, and neither do you. Bush might well have said what he said for political effect. Dirty, but legal.
If I have such a role, I haven’t sought it out. I made this last statement to answer the implication that I’ve changed my position.
I didn’t say that. I said he should resign for a particular reason; I never said that list was complete. He should resign if he committed treason, yes. And to forestall any other inquires: he shoudl resign if he’s an arsonist, a forger, or a child molestor.
I don’t know.
He has a duty to ask Rove what’s going on. For all I know, he may have done this. Based on the answers, he may have a duty to fire Rove; he may have a duty to stand by him.
His duty to stand by him would come as a competent and loyal boss. His duty to fire him would come as a competent boss who is also the chief executive of the United States.
If the act weren’t illegal? I would not be as upset.
Well, YOU are getting on my nerves a bit.
You’re the last one that should be complaining about the process, Elvis, because that’s the exact thing I’m complaining about. If you want a debate, the best path of action is probably not raving lunatic, which is the path you seem to have chosen so far.
And no, I’m not “keeping score.” I just don’t normally agree with Bricker, but he’s been perfectly reasonable in this thread. Granted, most here came to the conclusion that it was Rove (I originally typed Rover, which is a pretty fitting nickname, methinks) earlier, but he wasn’t an ass about it. You are being an ass. Stop.
Karl Rove signed an across-the-board waiver releasing all journalists from any confidentiality agreement with him (not exactly the gesture of a obviously guilty man). So the burning question is: Why did Judith Miller choose to go to jail? For journalistic principles? Perhaps. But it makes little sense…unless you assume she is the Leak. In that case, she was facing a choice - spend a little while in the slammer as a journalistic martyr, or 'fess up and face possible federal charges, plus watch her career go down in flames.
You are all overlooking a very obvious, *very real * possiblity: Judith Miller knew about Valerie Plame because she heard it from Joe Wilson - an indiscreet bigmouth. If that is true, then she will absolutely choose to sit in jail rather than admit it.
Yeah, yeah! He probably told her while they were doing it! A little pillow talk - "Hey, baby, you give better head than my wife. And she’s a covert CIA agent. You think she’d be a bit better ‘under cover.’ "
Two questions.
Is your characterization of Joe Wilson as “an indiscreet bigmouth” supported by fact, or a supposition required to support the rest of this theory?
Why do you think Judith Miller would rather sit in jail than admit it, if the above theory is the true story?
Nonsense. Ms. Miller, also known as the “Queen of Baghdad” was a Bushivik apologist and shill of the first water. Her career issues result from her unblinking and unquestioning willingness to promote as gospel WMD Bushwah that, upon examination, was crapola. Why would Wilson tell her anything?
Anyway, the fur is flying.
From “Scarborough Country”, MSNBC’s Fox Lite…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8551822
And this, in an astonishing example of retroactive virginity…
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/media_watch
With Rover standing right there. And, of course, as you know, he already has commented while the investigation was proceeding, but now that the cheese is getting a bit binding… Slam the lid! Its only been two fucking years, gotta be patient. When the investigation is complete, it will then be inappropriate to comment until the trials are finished, and then it will be inappropriate until the sentences are fully served, or the pardon proferred, whichever comes first.
(Stop and ask yourself: are you really as dumb as he thinks you are?)
Anyone else here read Jimmy Breslin’s How the Good Guys Finally Won?
His point in that book may very well apply here. In a nutshell: once it became a legal matter, with papers filed, Nixon’s doom was sealed, all those papers piling up, each one making a tiny but distinct cut, slowly slicing him to ribbons. The irony is that legal stuff like this offers a temporary shelter, you can use the “inappropriate” ploy to clam up, but sooner or later, the truth will out. And someones gonna fry like a worm on a griddle.
“There is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent!” - Mao Tze Tung
Upon previewing Hentor: Deep Throat Two: The Revenge!
And the evidence for this possibility is … what, again?
And what effect could that have been, pray tell? Knowing that there’d be an investigation, and anything it would turn up would be harmful? Sure. Yes, we do know.
Please. You know what this has all been about.
Take a wild guess, then.
But instead he’s leaving him out to dry, with just the standard “vote of confidence” that a baseball manager gets just a few days before he’s fired. What does your common sense tell you happened?
There you have it.
Of course you wouldn’t. There is no evidence of your being upset at all about this otherwise.
Jim, there is a long history with this fellow that you may not be aware of. But try this: What does it mean to you when a moral cripple says something you agree with? Doesn’t it make you wonder if you’re right? Doesn’t it make you think you need to understand how that could happen? Doesn’t it undercut your own credibility with others when you assert a view that a moral cripple would agree with? Doesn’t it matter that one be not only right, but be right *for the right reasons * as well?
And where did you get the idea that I’m a “liberal” (your word), i.e. a reflexive partisan? It so happens that I’m what in the US is called a moderate. If wingers would be “embarrassed” to have me be one, that’s fine. Care to reconsider?