# Valerie Plame and NSA Surveillance. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726 "2005-12-22T02:25:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/21 "2005-12-22T15:22:31Z")
Hey, go ahead and investigate the hell out of it; bring the leaker to court if we must, and let a judge decide whether the case has merit. What one Doper or another happens to think about it has no particular impact. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that an illegal leak should be not be prosecuted, but I am unconvinced by the OP’s claims that this case is somehow precisely equivalent (only worse! Worse, I tell you!) to the Plame case. In any event, it’s my opinion that the OP has no particular interest in debating these points, but has simply posted an attempted ‘gotcha’ so that he can label persons he disagrees with as hypocrites. Sorry, but I must decline to play this particular game. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/22 "2005-12-22T15:31:12Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Is the Justice department investigating the Times story? It is a safe bet that they are. > [@](#): > > Mr. Bush said he has not ordered an investigation into the leak, but said, “There’s a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks. I presume that process is moving forward.” > > ``` > A Department of Justice official said the agency "does not comment on or confirm the existence of criminal investigations." > > "All matters referred to the department by the intelligence agencies for purposes of further investigation are taken seriously and thoroughly reviewed," the official said. > > ``` [http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051220-105145-1551r](http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051220-105145-1551r) ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/23 "2005-12-22T15:39:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > If you maintain that this program was a crime of enormous magnitude would you expect Rockeffelar and all the Senators and Congressman who were informed of it to be prosecuted for conspiracy for their participation? Rockefeller was not participating, he was merely notified. And due to that notification, he let his objections known in writing. But he could not notify any other lawmakers because DOING SO WOULD HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. He could not confer with any legal scholars BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. He could not file suit in Federal Court to stop the practice, BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. So you blame him for not breaking the law when someone was breaking the law? > [@](#): > > I guess you’re right. The ability to listen in on your enemy’s planning of attacks so that you can intercept and prevent them really isn’t a National Security issue. I mean it wouldn’t have done us any good to have known what Al Quaeda was planning for September 11th. This comes straight from the Republican talking points **Scylla**. You are a better debater than this. As has been mentioned, FISA allows 72 hours. This is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/24 "2005-12-22T15:44:20Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Is the Justice department investigating the Times story? I suspect the White House will actually cooperate with this investigation. I suspect Congress will have little appetite for appointing a special prosecuter. While still under Republican control, I doubt they are real thrilled that the president did an end around there powers in such a manner. Also, partisanship may be weak at this point while they wait to see if any more revelations shake out. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/25 "2005-12-22T16:10:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yes, all leaks should be investigated. Someone who leaks something “good” one day might leak something “bad” the next. There’s no way of telling. Certainly agree with this. In fact I think this is the core theme of what the OP was getting at. > [@Ravenman](#): > > But the similarities of the NSA case and the Plame case do not speak to the main difference: The Plame leak was undeniably made in order to further a smear campaign against a political opponent, not to inform the public of a fact relative to their liberties or security. I simply fail to see how the American people are served by knowing the name of a covert CIA agent. It is a matter of curiousity, to be sure, but I just fail to see any connection whatsoever between this bit classified trivia and the general public interest. I don’t see this though. This seems to say that the means justify the ends…i.e. Plame was outted supposedly for political gain while this leak (giving it the benifit of the doubt) was for the good of the people. Who decides this though? And aren’t there mechanisms within the government to deal with things OTHER than leaking to the popular press if indeed the president is guilty of overstepping his authority? I guess this whole arguement rests on IF in fact what Bush et al did was illegal (and therefore justified releasing this classified info to the popular press). From why my lawyer buddy says its a grey area (though I admit I’m not getting the finer points). Even if it IS illegal (I’ll wait and see if anyone gets prosecuted myself before I decide) I’m not sure that the means justify the ends…i.e. that its justify-able to release information thats critical to national security to the popular press…at least not before all other avenues are tried and failed. > [@China Guy](#): > > Terrorists know there’s all sorts of spook stuff looking for them. Leaking this is hardly news to an organization that cut it’s teeth among some pretty hardline police states such as Saudi Arabia. Presumably Osama and his merry men knew we could tap into cell phones…yet it wasn’t until the information leaked out that we WERE tapping into their cell calls that they stopped using them. Intellectually they may have known it was a possibility…but confronted with the information that it was in fact happening they were forced to act to protect themselves. I’m sure there are folks now wary of their lines being tapped…so they will now presumably change to a different tactic. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/26 "2005-12-22T16:23:38Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > The fact that Valerie Plame was not undercover or operating out of the country, or otherwise engaged so that the leak would damage our security as a Nation was hardly the point. It was against the law to leak her name, and the precedent endangers other covert operatives. > > In this situation where no actual damage was done… The CIA has not asserted that no damage was done. Do you have special inside information that you are leaking here at the SDMB? (Do you know that Valerie Plame had no vulnerable overseas contacts from previous service that might have been outed by her being outed? Do you know that no other NOC CIA agents were using Brewster Jennings as a cover? And where do you get this information?) Seems that either you’re guilty of the very thing you decry, or you’re making bullshit assertions without evidence. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/27 "2005-12-22T16:24:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > This seems to say that the means justify the ends…i.e. Plame was outted supposedly for political gain while this leak (giving it the benifit of the doubt) was for the good of the people. Who decides this though? This being a democracy, we do. How about it, then? Can you suggest a way in which the Plame outing was for the good of the people rather than simple personal retribution? What good was served by it? On the converse, do you think no public good was served by pointing out Bush’s illegal and abusive activities, only a political vendetta? > [@](#): > > And aren’t there mechanisms within the government to deal with things OTHER than leaking to the popular press if indeed the president is guilty of overstepping his authority? They haven’t been working, have they? Why d’ya s’pose that is? > [@](#): > > I guess this whole arguement rests on IF in fact what Bush et al did was illegal (and therefore justified releasing this classified info to the popular press). You’re buying into the Bricker approach, aren’t you? There are other considerations that apply, here in a democracy, other than technical letter-of-the-law legality. Nixon was forced out for abuse of power, on a scale comparable to Bush’s, if you’ll recall. The leak of the Pentagon Papers was similarly illegal, yet in hindsight, absolutely necessary. That happens sometimes, and it’s a mistake to limit one’s consideration of a leak to its legality. The Plame leak, even if it were legal, would still be just as abusive and just as dangerous. And I’m sure the investigation of the wiretapping leak will begin as soon as the Plame investigation is completed, assuming similar levels of White House cooperation - why ever would they differ? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/28 "2005-12-22T16:36:17Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Presumably Osama and his merry men knew we could tap into cell phones…yet it wasn’t until the information leaked out that we WERE tapping into their cell calls that they stopped using them. Could you refresh my recollection about how and when this was leaked? What the Chimperor complained about, [just three days ago](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html), was that a paper had published _that he used a cell phone_ - and he was wrong about that, too: it was a satellite phone. [But that had been published as early as 1996.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html?sub=AR) > [@](#): > > Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours. One of them ‘wag the dog’ thingies. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/29 "2005-12-22T16:37:34Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Presumably Osama and his merry men knew we could tap into cell phones…yet it wasn’t until the information leaked out that we WERE tapping into their cell calls that they stopped using them… [Osama Bin Laden and the Leak That Wasn’t](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901545.html) > [@](#): > > The White House says the president was referring to a profile of the al Qaeda leader that appeared in the Washington Times on Aug. 21, 1998. In the 21st paragraph, the article stated: “He keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones and has given occasional interviews to international news organizations.” > > The information in the article does not appear to be based on any government leak and made no reference to government surveillance of bin Laden’s phone. So the president’s Osama story was more of a parable than anything based in factual reality. It’s too bad he feels the need to confuse the issues with made up stuff, there’s enough leakage to argue about _without_ including fake leaks in the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/30 "2005-12-22T16:45:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This being a democracy, we do. How about it, then? Can you suggest a way in which the Plame outing was for the good of the people rather than simple personal retribution? What good was served by it? On the converse, do you think no public good was served by pointing out Bush’s illegal and abusive activities, only a political vendetta? I thought I said both were bad. Let me clarify. BOTH were wrong and whoever leaked in BOTH cases should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If it was Bush or Chaney in the Plame case then nail their asses to the fucking wall. See, I don’t think serving ‘good’ is a reasonable reason to leak critical information…because the person leaking said info may have a different definition of what ‘good’ is. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > They haven’t been working, have they? Why d’ya s’pose that is? Haven’t they? This seems to be an assumption on your part. Myself I’m starting to wonder ‘where is the beef’ in all these seemingly endless allegations I’ve been hearing around here for years now. I can’t count the number of ‘impeachable’ offenses Bush has seemingly skated out of, how many ‘illegal’ things he’s done yet gotten away with, etc. Seemingly he’s the most corrupt politician of all time…not just here in the US but anywhere. Yet he is still in power and his administration is mostly still intact to this point. So…where’s the beef? When are these things going to start hammering home? Personally I think the system DOES work…though perhaps not in the timely fashion you would like. IF Bush has done some shady things I think that eventually they WILL catch up to him. Perhaps it will be in the next administration…perhaps while he’s still in office. Let me ask a question at this point for you and others who don’t see a problem with this particular leak: Why was it critical that we the people know about it right now? Why couldn’t this, assuming its illegal, have been dealt with through the proper channels. Assuming your answer is ‘because the Republicans rule the land and hold it under their iron fist’ then why couldn’t it wait until the next administration…assuming the Dems win next time. We find out all the time about past activities of previous administrations and legislate in many cases to prevent future repeats of the most heinous offenses. Self correcting system and all that. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re buying into the Bricker approach, aren’t you? There are other considerations that apply, here in a democracy, other than technical letter-of-the-law legality. Nixon was forced out for abuse of power, on a scale comparable to Bush’s, if you’ll recall. I’m no lawyer. Afaik Bricker is. I’m not aware of his arguements on this subject (I didn’t see his post in this tread…I must have missed it) but I’d probably at least listen closely to what he says…presumably he knows something about the law since its his field isn’t it? As for Nixon he was caught red handed and forced to leave. If Bush is equally caught red handed I’ll jump for joy…though the down side of that is that Chaney will then be the Prez which I’m unsure if thats such a good thing to be honest. Kind of scary. That doesn’t justify THIS particular leak though, even if it is the nail that goes into Bush’s coffin…because it could endanger our national security. And there ARE other mechanisms for dealing with this that wouldn’t release such information to the general public. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/31 "2005-12-22T16:47:27Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > So the president’s Osama story was more of a parable than anything based in factual reality. It’s too bad he feels the need to confuse the issues with made up stuff, there’s enough leakage to argue about without including fake leaks in the discussion. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Could you refresh my recollection about how and when this was leaked? My bad then…I thought I recalled a story during the Clinton administration about a Senator or Congresscritter who had leaked this info…and that AQ had switched to alternative communications as a result. Sorry. -XT ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/32 "2005-12-22T16:51:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I thought I said both were bad. You distinguished the reasons earlier. If you don’t think that matters, fine - but the consequences are still as different as the reasons. > [@](#): > > So…where’s the beef? When are these things going to start hammering home? They are, they are. Pay more attention. > [@](#): > > Why was it critical that we the people know about it right now?..why couldn’t it wait until the next administration…assuming the Dems win next time. Why can’t it wait forever, for that matter? Would there be less of a risk to national security under the next administration? > [@](#): > > I’m no lawyer. Afaik Bricker is. I’m not aware of his arguements on this subject Then spend less time typing and more time reading. > [@](#): > > As for Nixon he was caught red handed and forced to leave. If Bush is equally caught red handed I’ll jump for joy…though the down side of that is that Chaney will then be the Prez which I’m unsure if thats such a good thing to be honest. Why dismiss the possibility, even likelihood, that they’d be impeached together? They’ve done the same things, haven’t they? > [@](#): > > And there ARE other mechanisms for dealing with this that wouldn’t release such information to the general public. 'Bout time for you to point out what they are and how well they’re working, then. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/33 "2005-12-22T16:52:09Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Certainly agree with this. In fact I think this is the core theme of what the OP was getting at. > > I don’t see this though. This seems to say that the means justify the ends… By my reading, the OP simply wanted to point fingers. I haven’t seen one coherent, well-reasoned argument made by him so far. And as far as means justifying the ends, you’re misunderstanding. It is not the ends that matter, it is the intent. To put it a different way, there’s a big difference between a whistleblower and someone who just doesn’t know when to keep their big mouth shut. In the Plame case, nobody has directly accused her of violating any public trust, so far as I can tell. The only reasonable explaination of the leak I can put together is that it was done as part of an attempt to threaten and punish a political opponent. Surely you agree that is not exactly a noble motive, right? In the NSA case, according to the NY Times, NSA officials threatened resignation over this matter, so it appears that other avenues had indeed been tried first. Given known facts, it seems pretty goddamn obvious that the leak was of the whistleblower variety. I have a lot harder time being convinced that the public’s right to know of (alleged) misconduct or criminial behavior by the highest levels of the government must be subordinated to an assertion of secrecy in the name of national security, especially when that assertion is made by the same officals who are accused of misconduct. On preview, I concede the point that there can be a fine line between a disgruntled employee seeking his moment in the spotlight and a noble whistleblower. It can be an awfully tough call. But that debate doesn’t mean that all leaks are always bad. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/34 "2005-12-22T16:59:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nixon was forced out for abuse of power, on a scale comparable to Bush’s, if you’ll recall. Just to get the facts straight: Nixon _might_ have been forced out for abuse of power, if the June 23, 1972 tape hadn’t come to light. Abuse of power was one of three articles of impeachment to pass the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, and it’s the one that got the most votes. But the June 23 tape, the ‘smoking gun’ on the obstruction of justice charge, was what directly led to Nixon’s resignation. > [@xtisme](#): > > My bad then…I thought I recalled a story during the Clinton administration about a Senator or Congresscritter who had leaked this info…and that AQ had switched to alternative communications as a result. Sorry. No prob. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/35 "2005-12-22T17:03:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > As for Nixon he was caught red handed and forced to leave. If Bush is equally caught red handed I’ll jump for joy…though the down side of that is that Chaney will then be the Prez which I’m unsure if thats such a good thing to be honest. Kind of scary. That doesn’t justify THIS particular leak though, even if it is the nail that goes into Bush’s coffin…because it could endanger our national security. And there ARE other mechanisms for dealing with this that wouldn’t release such information to the general public. The articles of impeachment that would have been voted against Nixon included an actual criminal charge: obstruction of justice, for using the FBI, CIA, and white House staff to derail the criminal investigation into the Watergate break-in. In the two previous impeachments, both of them also were predicated on allegations of criminal conduct: Johnson’s violation of the Tenure in Office Act and Clinton’s perjury before the grand jury. Now, there is no rule that this is so. The House may vote an article of impeachment against the President for failing to eat a healthy breakfast in the morning and thus setting a poor example for America’s youth. However, the political reality is that an impeachment will never happen without a clear criminal act as its predicate. It’s not the rule, just the reality. Now turning to the leakers. It’s unclear to me what specific criminal act they might have committed by disclosing this. I think it’s clear their motives were likely good ones, and I’d have to see the statute they allegedly violated before further comment. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/36 "2005-12-22T17:07:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why can’t it wait forever, for that matter? Would there be less of a risk to national security under the next administration? Because our system doesn’t work that way. Besides, whatever we are doing today won’t be particularly relevant in a few years. By the next administration I doubt the same data would be as critical to national security. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 'Bout time for you to point out what they are and how well they’re working, then. Point out what mechanisms are in the government to track down and prosecute these kinds of things? Take a first year civics class. As for the second part of the question its subjective. If you start with the assumption that what Bush has been doing is illegal and he’s gotten away with it then the answer would be…its not working very well atm. Take that assumption away and the answer COULD be…its working fine. Even using the first assumption if we go ahead a year or so and Bush is impeached, then we are back to…its working fine. So…sorry, I can’t answer that. > [@Ravenman](#): > > And as far as means justifying the ends, you’re misunderstanding. It is not the ends that matter, it is the intent. So…if my intent is good, even if the end result is bad, then its ok? I guess I’m not able to see the difference between intent and the means justifying the ends with reguard to this discussion. > [@Ravenman](#): > > To put it a different way, there’s a big difference between a whistleblower and someone who just doesn’t know when to keep their big mouth shut. In the Plame case, nobody has directly accused her of violating any public trust, so far as I can tell. The only reasonable explaination of the leak I can put together is that it was done as part of an attempt to threaten and punish a political opponent. Surely you agree that is not exactly a noble motive, right? Certainly I agree that it appears that the person who leaked the Plame info had less than noble intent. And I’ll even conceed that the person who leaked this info perhaps DID have a noble intent. However they were both wrong…illegal even. In both cases the information was classified. In both cases there could be consequences far beyond the political…and in both people could potentially be hurt and/or our ability as a nation to gather vital intelligence could be impacted. > [@Ravenman](#): > > In the NSA case, according to the NY Times, NSA officials threatened resignation over this matter, so it appears that other avenues had indeed been tried first. Given known facts, it seems pretty goddamn obvious that the leak was of the whistleblower variety. I have a lot harder time being convinced that the public’s right to know of (alleged) misconduct or criminial behavior by the highest levels of the government must be subordinated to an assertion of secrecy in the name of national security, especially when that assertion is made by the same officals who are accused of misconduct. If all other avenues to address this had been exhausted then I agree. I’m going to drop out at this point and do some further reading on this time permitting. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/37 "2005-12-22T17:26:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > However, the political reality is that an impeachment will never happen without a clear criminal act as its predicate. It’s not the rule, just the reality. As you said in another thread, “But it’s always for the person offering the assertion to provide evidence.” At that time, I’d presented a much more clear pattern of supporting evidence than what you’ve cited here. And what have you cited here? A set that includes only the following three data points: 1. The Andrew Johnson impeachment. Happened nearly 150 years ago. Hardly an indication of contemporary political realities. One down, two remaining. 1. The Bill Clinton impeachment. The political reality here was that they couldn’t have impeached Clinton without a criminal charge because the perjury rap was all they had; there really was no underlying ‘high crime’. Two down, one to go. 1. The Nixon impeachment. The two primary charges were obstruction of justice (a crime) and abuse of power (not a crime). The abuse of power charge was the one that received the most votes in the House Judiciary Committee, which is as far as the impeachment process got. You can say that there would have been no impeachment without the obstruction of justice charge, and I can say the abuse of power charge was the key, and would have stood by itself. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Even if you’re right on Nixon, though, you’re still generalizing a “political reality” from one relevant data point. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/38 "2005-12-22T17:30:29Z")
I’ll put my own widdershins English on what **Bricker** said before agreeing with it. I would love to see Bush be impeached over this: the political damage an impeachment would inflict on the current powers in the Republican party would be well worth a couple years of President Cheney. However, I would need to see the specific articles of impeachment before I could say whether I agreed with them. I would hate to see the leaker in this case impeached: revealing a corrupt government program in which our resources are used to spy on ourselves is pretty much the whole reason that the “whistleblower” concept came along. However, I would need to see the specific law they’re accused of breaking before I could say whether they’re innocent. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/39 "2005-12-22T17:40:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > If all other avenues to address this had been exhausted then I agree It would appear to me that there weren’t any avenues at all. They couldn’t even seek out legal opinion because doing so would have broken the law. They had two choices. Complain, and nothing changes, or quit, and nothing changes. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726/40 "2005-12-22T17:45:05Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I would love to see Bush be impeached over this: the political damage an impeachment would inflict on the current powers in the Republican party would be well worth a couple years of President Cheney. If impeachment happens at all, I suspect we’ll be able to make a twofer of it. It seems likely that anything Bush has done that genuinely warrants impeachment would find Cheney deeply involved as well. Certainly any charge of lying us into the Iraq war would find Cheney equally culpable; similarly for any torture/gulag-related charge. Bush might possibly have issued his Executive Order authorizing the NSA surveillance without substantial involvement by Cheney, but it hardly seems the way to bet. Simulpeachment! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valerie-plame-and-nsa-surveillance/336726.md?page=3)