Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Carnival Of Pain | Main | Raw Story - They Got The Day Right! »

December 15, 2005

Comments

BurkettHead

That's where I lost my motivation on the Espionage Act. It hasn't seemed worth the effort & doesn't seem relevant at this point. Not that IIPA is even relevant anymore.

clarice

Neither are. And Fitz' actions shows that--still he knew to sound sane he had to pretend some elements were there--harm to national security, tap dance about "classified". Still he can't pull that before a real judge and jury , and I wouldn't be surprised if they think he's a bit off his rocker. I sure do.

Specter

Burketthead,

The problem with Title 50 implications is this. The term "covert agent" doesn't fit Plame and hasn't since she was moved back to the States after Aldridge Ames supposedly "outed" her to the Soviet Union. Here is the section:

United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 426 - Definitions

(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.

BurkettHead

Some investigation when the easiest charges are lying, perjury & obstruction of justice, isn't it?

Fitz knew to avoid the term "covert."

Specter - It was my understanding that Syl said that IIPA would only apply to "officials," not civillians & clarice asked about the specific language in IIPA & the Espionage Act. I agree - there are a number of reasons IIPA doesn't apply to these facts.

"Outing" Pflame. Disclosing ship movements & the locations of submarines. Compare & contrast. An interesting exercise, which I'll leave for others.

boris

Syl,

With crypto there is no such thing as "secure by reason of official assertion". It would be flat out dangerous to play postmodern language games like that. Agree?

The fact that criteria for evaluating classification exists means it has to ultimately trump official assertion or else similar risk to national security would develop. Not to mention all the other bad government behaviors listed in cathy's 1:55PM post.

Bill in AZ

Fitz's "classified" is just noise. My status with a large computer company is "classified" depending on who's asking. Not sure what he ever intended to acomplish with this other than to obfuscate.

noah

Its gratifying that the so-called wingnuts are coalescing around my position...but I remain confused...oh dear.

Help me Lord and Merry Christmas and I pray for no Fitzmas!

Syl

Clarice

I did not say the IIPA applied. I didn't see fitz prosecuting per the Espionage Act either. That's not the point.

All I'm saying is that the information was classified and trying to assert it was not classified is wrong.

Syl

boris

No the postmodern games are being played by you in your decision to assert that Val's affiliation with the CIA is not classified.

Cathy is playing games too because she has decided the information meets the criteria not to be classified. It's not her call.

If the IIPA does not apply, and we're pretty much in agreement that it does not, then 'outing' Val is not an issue and all that's left is officials revealing classified info.

But fitz isn't doing that either. He figures he can't get someone for bank robbery but he can get him for jaywalking as he leaves the scene of the crime.

I don't like it. But arguing that the info was not classified will get nowhere with fitz because the info was classified and it's the responsibility of the leakers to know that. Leave those arguments for a jury to mull over that's where they belong.

BurkettHead

Syl said: "Leave those arguments for a jury to mull over that's where they belong."

Isn't that why we all spend so much time here? Wouldn't be much to these comments if we just threw up our hands everytime we came up with a quetion of fact (for the jury) or a question of law (for the judge).

Is it the Full Moon? Are we (including myself!) getting testy around here?

BurkettHead

Too many clouds. Couldn't get any good photos of the Moon tonight.

Syl

Burketthead

We can argue all we want about anything, but arguing that fitz shouldn't be investigating is useless especially if we make up stuff like the info wasn't classified.

Cheez-Wiz

Noah-nothing, you saw me posting at DailyKos?

I'll be damned-someone's spoofing me!?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame