I haven't read this thread, it's already over 10 pages long so I'll skip. But are there any precedents to this situation? "The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws" If yes, what were they? (just direct me to posts on this thread if it has already been discussed. Thank's)
Fishbiproduct, if you have a couple of minutes read page 10. There is a good article from the LA times which I agree with, and also a thoughtful rebuttal from somebody who dissagrees with me.
Thank's, ASF. Interesting article, but it treats more of the "politiquery" ( ) that accompanies the event and of the CIA's failures/faults. Still doesn't answer my question, which is: how often, if ever, has the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate actions (or allegations of )taken by the administration ( current or previous, obviously) in order to determine wether it had broken the law? And how/why?
Yesterday's (sunday 10/5) Washington Post "Outlook" section carried a piece called "Do We Really Want to Stop The Leaks," by a guy named Ted Gup. It doesn't so much address this particular issue as it does the general concept of leaks, and that the people who are screaming and stamping their feet with outrage should maybe cool down and think for a minute. "...Rumsfeld...Ashcroft...and Vice President Cheney will likely see past the current scandal to the political license it grants them in further managing the release of information and squelching the opposition." I read it in on paper, but if you want to register and look it up, be my guest. But he gives some examples of important leaks: - The Pentagon Papers, of course - Poindexter's scheme to establish that wierd "futures market" - The memo from an FBI agent about Moussaoi, the so-called "20th hijacker". - Numerous leaks, old and recent, that "have been instrumental in curbing government waste and corruption, bringing to light violations of civil liberties at home and atrocities abroad, and calling to account public figures who would otherwise take refuge in secrecy." Yes, both he and I know those aren't really applicable to the present case, but we both suggest "that those who pursue such a call" (to bring the administration down for this incident) "temper their enthusiasm and partisan ardor...and remember the larger canvas - that today's indignation may be used to justify tomorrow's intimidation." Yes, this is a disgraceful episode, and I know the talk radio idiots would be screaming "Treason! Treason!" and demanding public hangings if the Democrats had done this. But its a double-edged sword. For the most part, there's way TOO much secrecy in our government, not the other way around.
I'm sorry, but this seems like an asinine point to me. Context is everything, and if you can't tell the difference between the Pentagon Papers (1400 pages of government lies to keep us in an unjust war) and the identity of a COVERT agent working to protect US citizens from terrorists, then you've clearly lost all rational ability. Now if it turns out that Plame was a "double agent," working to give WMD info to Al Quaeda, well then...let's thank god the info was leaked. That would be a "bad secret." Otherwise, what you're saying is that you don't believe in secrecy at all.
No, but in the same way law and order fanatics used 9-11 as the rationale for the patriot act, all this screaming and carrying on could lead to similarly unnecesary and opportunistic measures. As I said, I don't really believe my previous post is applicable in this case. But lets be hypothetical for a moment. Suppose the former ambassador was actually working for the CIA, who for reasons of their own were fabricating or distorting evidence to derail the war-train. Could someone in the administration, or within the agency, or inside the Pentagon, blow the whistle on it with a clean conscience? In the future would such a person be subject to arrest without charge, and incarceration without access to a lawyer? Are either of these hypotheticals really so far-fetched? Yes, I think its comical to see the CIA and a republican white house squabbling, and democrats would be stupid not to punish Bush for it. But lets not waste so many tears on the agency. They're big boys, and they can take care of themselves.
Max Boot often writes for the WSJ and the Weekly Standard, I think he makes some good points but to set him up as unbiased would be misleading.
Hell yeah! How is "blowing the whistle" even related to this Wilson case at all? Apples to oranges... The attempt to link them, btw, is merely a transparent attempt at spin by the right. You're simply falling for it.
I already explained that I don't think it is applicable in this case. But how did 9-11 lead to the FBI being able to find out the books I read without the librarian being allowed to tell me? Momma didn't raise no fools. I know what the right is doing. If you go all the way back to the first page or two of this massive document, you'll see I was putting the "right-wing spin" on this before anyone else did. Go ahead. Make political hay out of it, by all means. Its perfectly justified in this case. But go reread what I've said before, and be sure there's nothing to keep in mind there.
It's an even worse analogy. "It's only a **************" is value judgement that can be debated. "She is only and analyst" is a factual question with only one answer. And it has already be answered. She was not "only an analyst". She was a covert operative. Will the people keep bringing up the "she's only an analyst" crap out of either stubbornness or ignorance please read these articles. "The Justice Department has begun an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who served in the CIA's operations division and acted clandestinely under what is called non-official cover. That means she worked in a position not associated with the U.S. government and when overseas on a spy mission was not protected by diplomatic immunity." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47562-2003Oct5.html This means that she was not only undercover she was DEEP COVER. The most dangerous work the CIA does. The harm done by blowing her cover is very serious and very real.
Not only is her safety in danger but agents who have worked with her over the last 20 years. She never had diplomatic cover in any of her assignments abroad. Only elite case officers get those assignments. A friend's father is a retired CIA officer. I saw him the other day and he was appalled by the Administration's actions. He felt that those responsible should go to jail. He also happens to be a lifelong Republican.