You seem to begin with a conclusion ("the official breaking the law") in order to later conclude "someone in the White House committed a crime."
The law (50 USC s.421) makes it a crime to disclose the name of a "covert agent" -- but not of any other category of CIA employee (e.g., analyst, accountant, etc.)
Can you (please) point to _any_ credible evidence that Ms Plame was in fact a "covert agent"? The legislative history, incidentally, makes it quite clear that the purpose of this law is to protect agents "in the field" from harm, not to protect the anonymity of folks sitting comfortably in the CIA hq in Langley (which is in fact where Ms Plame works).
I wouldn't have thought I'd find you defending the government, but since you ask, take a look at the post just below, where another CIA agent leaves absolutely no doubt as to Plame's status and the importance of what happened.
I've noticed Johnson's interview. I know (and can find on the Internet) nothing at all about him. The woods are full of "ex-CIA" types with stories, and here all we have to depend on is CNN (which should have no credibility with anyone after they "edited" news on Iraq). Now, before you hit the keyboard, I am _not_ claiming that Johnson is wrong (much less challenging his motives), but I am saying that there are not sufficient verifiable facts out (yet) on which to base a conclusion.
If in fact Plame was a "covert agent" (and that is the _only_ term that counts, since it is what's covered in the law), and was "outed," why won't she or her husband confirm that fact? Note that Wilson has _not_ made that claim. Why not?
Further, the law also requires that the US gov't take "affirmative measures to conceal" that person's identity -- and Novak has written that he confirmed her employment with the CIA itself.
My only point: there is not sufficient and reliable evidence that a crime has been committed for you to draw that conclusion.
As far as defending the gov't.....thanks for noticing.
Johnson's not the only source, just the most vehement. Also see this WaPo story and this piece in Slate.
I will grant however, that I can't know at this point whether a crime has been committed. But I don't think that's the same as saying a crime hasn't been committed. And--and this may be the real heart of the disagreement between "right" and "left" on this issue--I don't think we'll find out for sure unless we make a lot of noise.
You seem to begin with a conclusion ("the official breaking the law") in order to later conclude "someone in the White House committed a crime."
The law (50 USC s.421) makes it a crime to disclose the name of a "covert agent" -- but not of any other category of CIA employee (e.g., analyst, accountant, etc.)
Can you (please) point to _any_ credible evidence that Ms Plame was in fact a "covert agent"? The legislative history, incidentally, makes it quite clear that the purpose of this law is to protect agents "in the field" from harm, not to protect the anonymity of folks sitting comfortably in the CIA hq in Langley (which is in fact where Ms Plame works).
Posted by Clarence Darrow | Link to this comment | 10- 1-03 2:50 AM
Clarence,
I wouldn't have thought I'd find you defending the government, but since you ask, take a look at the post just below, where another CIA agent leaves absolutely no doubt as to Plame's status and the importance of what happened.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 1-03 7:55 AM
Ogged,
I've noticed Johnson's interview. I know (and can find on the Internet) nothing at all about him. The woods are full of "ex-CIA" types with stories, and here all we have to depend on is CNN (which should have no credibility with anyone after they "edited" news on Iraq). Now, before you hit the keyboard, I am _not_ claiming that Johnson is wrong (much less challenging his motives), but I am saying that there are not sufficient verifiable facts out (yet) on which to base a conclusion.
If in fact Plame was a "covert agent" (and that is the _only_ term that counts, since it is what's covered in the law), and was "outed," why won't she or her husband confirm that fact? Note that Wilson has _not_ made that claim. Why not?
Further, the law also requires that the US gov't take "affirmative measures to conceal" that person's identity -- and Novak has written that he confirmed her employment with the CIA itself.
My only point: there is not sufficient and reliable evidence that a crime has been committed for you to draw that conclusion.
As far as defending the gov't.....thanks for noticing.
Posted by Clarence | Link to this comment | 10- 1-03 8:45 AM
Johnson's not the only source, just the most vehement. Also see this WaPo story and this piece in Slate.
I will grant however, that I can't know at this point whether a crime has been committed. But I don't think that's the same as saying a crime hasn't been committed. And--and this may be the real heart of the disagreement between "right" and "left" on this issue--I don't think we'll find out for sure unless we make a lot of noise.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 1-03 9:41 AM