Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Vicious,
I hope you are reading the comments. You will note how those with an agenda only repeat what the mainstream media say to the public but not what the mainstream media says in court, when they can be punished for lying.
You will also notice the attacks.
You are getting a wonderful education.
I hope you are learning.
i wanted to click on your link to the baker law institute, but the link is dead
i'm reading many of the comments, but yet again it has divulged into what joe wilson said in his report, which i don't see as having relevance to the outting of his wife's name. and i understand that the outting of plame's name might not be a crime because she wasn't in foreign lands, but i want to re-read your post once i get back
You are right, the document was moved. I downloaded it for situations like this.
I will fix my link on page two as well as add it here
Amici Brief 32305.
Since the link could be broken again it will still allow you to search the entire site. Search for Amici Brief 32305. The first entry was "Baker & Hostetler LLP | Media Law" "3/23/2005 Amici Brief in Confidential Sources Case on Behalf of 36 Media Organizations." Clicked on that link then look for the link with the lable "3/23/2005 Amici Brief in Confidential Sources Case on Behalf of 36 Media Organizations" to finally bring up the brief.
Also, the Amici brief is in PDF format but they did not implement search capabilities into the document. Which is why I am listing page numbers.
You are asking excellent questions.
>it has divulged into what joe wilson said in his report, which i don't
>see as having relevance to the outting of his wife's name.
>and i understand that the outting of plame's name might not be a
>crime because she wasn't in foreign lands, but i want to re-read
>your post once i get back
I'm not quite sure what you mean. However, in the Amici brief it details in laymans terms what the law says. As for the "not in foreign lands" that is what I had thought, however, the law also says the covert operative must have not been acting as a covert agent in a foreign land for over five years.
Page 5 discusses the points of... are you ready... the Intelligence Identities Protection act of 1982 Pub. L. No. 97-200, 1982. U.S.C.C.A.N. (96 Stat. 122) 145 (codified at 50 .U.S.C. $$ 421-426) (the "Act") (Tab A)" (The $ signs are a quick way for me to enter the special characters used in citing sections of law.)
I'm only listing the bullets that apply to exhonorate both her husband, the reporters, and Karl Rove.
1. The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.
(of course, they confirmed her working for the CIA to various reporters and accidentally revealed her name to Cuban agents and had her working in Langley, not under cover)
2. The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such agency that is classified.
(again, the CIA confirmed to reporters that she was working there so now she is neither covert nor was her working for the CIA classified)
3. At the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of the disclosure;
(this one is unknown. Some reports say she had been working in Langley since the mid 90's but we don't know if that is within the five year time frame.)
4. The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;
(again, the CIA was not trying to conceal her relationship. This is further evidenced by the fact that the government did not prosecute her husband when he identified her.)
5. The disclosure is intentional.
(this is vague but the reasonsing is clear. They didn't want members of Congress, or other government officials, who accidentally identified a covert operative to be prosecuted under this law. Thus, it goes to intent. We don't, at this time, know the intent of the informant. Of course, we are assuming that the informant is Karl Rove.)
Finally, 50 U.S.C. $ 422(a); S. Rep. 97-201, at 23 (1981), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 145, 167 provides a defense where, prior to disclosure, the "United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship" of the covert agent.
Thus, when the CIA revealed it to Cuban agents that gave everyone after that a defense. However, once her husband revealed it to the general public that most definitely gave the current individual a defense. Thus, no crime. Which is what the 36 media outlet organiztions state when talking with the courts.
Here was something I wrote to you last night to be posted today.
Viscious,
I thought that one final thought might help you. As you have seen from the court documents Valerie's identity was released three times and of those times two were public. The first was by the CIA apparently being too lax in their security when transmitting documents to Cuba.
The next time involved two liberals, her husband and a reporter.
The third time apparently involved one liberal and one conservative. Possibly Karl Rove and another reporter.
If this issue was so important to the radical liberals why were they not upset with the CIA, or any of the three liberals? Why are they upset with only the conservative? It was that individual, and the final reporter, that most obviously did
not commit a crime.
That should help you to understand more than just this case about what you read, see, and hear from the various liberal organizations.
Good Luck.
Facebook
Twitter