Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jul 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Well, you see, as you've swung more and more towards the left (by your own admission), it only looks like people you used to consider to be more centrist have become "far right wing".

    You might check your own perspective before complaining about others' positions.

    Kimball Kinnison
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    it only looks like people you used to consider to be more centrist have become "far right wing".

    i would never have considered conservativesoldier to be centrist.
  3. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Puppetmasters? You're the soldier and I'm the one being controlled here? Any way, I don't quite buy that this whole thing wasn't illegal, even if the Plames took advantage of it. And given that the best way to deal with something is to turn it into a positive it's not all that surprising that they have reaped the benefits of Rove's treachery. Even if it wasn't illegal it was still hitting below the belt.

    No, by his own admission, ConservativeSoldier admits he?s a far-righty.


  4. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Yes, but your comment that I replied to was not limited to ConservativeSoldier:
    You talked about "far right wing folks" (plural), and I was responding to that generalization.

    Kimball Kinnison
  5. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    You talked about "far right wing folks" (plural), and I was responding to that generalization.


    you don't even know who i was taking about (whereas the person i subtly aimed that post at does).
  6. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Then say what you mean, or take it to PM with that individual if you don't want others responding.

    You made a generalization and I responded to it pointing out that your perspective over time has changed. Since by your own admission, my observation is correct, you can't refute my point, so instead you are quibbling over details.

    Kimball Kinnison
  7. ConservativeSoldier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2005
    star 3
    I've been around for a year. I'm not a recent addition. That being said, it's not as if I'm trying to hide the fact that I'm extremely conservative...*glances at user-name*

    Which part of that statement in my profile denotes me as far-right? I'm just curious to see your response.

    I most certainly am extremely right-wing--somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, but it's necessary for me to know what in that line denotes me as one in your view.
  8. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    You made a generalization and I responded to it pointing out that your perspective over time has changed.

    my perspective is immaterial, as i would always have had the viewpoint i stated earlier, be it in 2002 or 2006.

    I've been around for a year. I'm not a recent addition

    you only recently started posting here again.

    this is all off topic, so we should probably get back to the discussion. sorry for the derailment.
  9. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    While I freely admit that I'm not a lawyer, I think it's important to point out that there was nothing illegal about what happened in the Valerie Plame case. Regardless of political leanings, we can all agree that this case was investigated for 2 years by a special council that, until recently, the media (CNN and Fox, for one) hailed as professional and responsible. The final product of that investigation was that "Scooter" Libby committed perjury. There was no finding of other criminal activity. The reason for this is that the law that they were trying to apply to the case has a very high standard for criminality. You have to know that the person in question is undercover and intentionally reveal this fact (there are actually more requirements than that, but those two are really hard to prosecute). My point is that, going into this investigation, there was virtually no way anyone was going to be prosecuted for "outing" Valerie Plame. Why my tax-payer dollars was spent on this fiasco, I'll never know.

    This was one of those cases where (some) people were outraged and thought to themselves "there ought to be a law!" and somebody else say "well...there is" (but there really wasn't).


    Last note on this topic. I find it remarkable how so many people can get so uptight about a non-Covert CIA agent's status as an employee of the CIA being revealed to the public but then those same people celebrate the leaks of TOP SECRET programs.

    I've known guys to get kicked out of the military (and one guy went to jail for a few months) for mishandling CONFIDENTIAL material. I find it remarkable that revealing TOP SECRET material gets so little ire.

    (For those of you who don't know, material is classified based on how much harm it could cause the US if that material is revealed. Sometimes that means tactical harm, sometimes it means political harm.)
  10. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Which part of that statement in my profile denotes me as far-right? I'm just curious to see your response.

    I most certainly am extremely right-wing--somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, but it's necessary for me to know what in that line denotes me as one in your view.


    Why? Do you wish to go around to people and make them think you're not conservative? Any way, saying, "I'm a hardcore Conservative," is really obvious as to your far-right status. And your other posts here as well, and your signature, and your name, etc. etc. But I do give you credit, very few people acknowledge they belong to a fringe; you wear it like a badge of honor. Good job.
  11. ConservativeSoldier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2005
    star 3
    Absolutely not. I'm damn proud to be a conservative. That should be obvious *again glances at user-name.*

    I was trying to figure out if you were going to associate "supporting the War on Terror" as an indication of being "far right-wing."

    With that in mind, the "far-right" isn't exactly a fringe. 37% of Americans call themselves conservative. Only 17% call themselves liberal. I'll let you deduce why that is.
  12. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Well, illiteracy rates are high.
  13. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Seriously, guys. The conversation is not productive and has nothing to do with the thread topic.
  14. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Yeah, what was just said. I'm watching you... o_O

    E_S
  15. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    You're right, it has nothing to do with the topic. However, there's not much to be said as there's been no new news on the situation (at least that I've seen) and those who are writing in on this issue have already made up their minds on the subject, CS especially. And you can't really discuss things logically with a person like that.
  16. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Fire_And_Ice, I'll just point out that I did quote and respond to you above. The issue of whether or not something illegal was done is entirely up for debate (ok...not really, but I'd rather talk about that than watching you and CS go back and forth :p).
  17. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Call me FIDo or FID's (well, only my friend Maryanna does that) and I agree it is more interesting than seeing CS or I argue. But I think the chances are if you've heard of this case you've already made up your mind one way or another. Personally, I think those the leaked Valerie Plame's name are scum. Even if it's not illegal going after someone's wife to discredit them is very much uncalled for.
  18. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    FIDo, I hear you on that. I'm not sure that the evidence suggests that they went after his wife to discredit him, but it's not an unreasonable assumption to make. If that is, what people did, I agree that it's a pathetic way to try and win an argument. If you happen to be right and the other guy is wrong, the truth will come out (as it eventually did, anyway).

    As a reminder, though, the first guy to leak her name certainly didn't do so to discredit Joe Wilson. It's one of those things where he just had his head squarely up his rather large behind.

    What of my other question, though. Don't you think it a bit hypocritical that the same people who want the Vice President's head on stick for leaking her name (regardless of proof) aren't up in arms about the constant leaks of TOP SECRET information? Why aren't we pounding the streets trying to find these guys so we can string them up by their cajones? Where's the special investigation?


  19. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    So here's where I'm hung up:

    It is established that Rove disclosed to Matthew Cooper Plame's status, and Libby confirmed it.
    It is established that Libby disclosed to Judith Miller Plame's status.

    Now, as I've stated much earlier, to my understanding:

    People who work with classified materials (such as Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby) sign a Nondisclosure Agreement, the SF-312, prohibiting them from revealing or confirming classified information. Whatever the applicability of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, revealing classified information breaches the NDA.

    Further, Executive Order 12598 expressly provides in section 5.7(b):
    "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."

    So, now that that background is laid out, why is the issue dead? Weather or not Cooper or Miller went to print, it would seem Rove and Libby would have violated their NDA. While Armitage released to the one reporter who went to print, he apparently did not do so with malicious intent or knowingly break his NDA.

    Regardless, why are Libby and Rove in the clear on their respective disclosures? What am I missing?
  20. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Superb question, Neo. To give you a little more background, NDA's are actually assigned some specificity. What that means is that you are "read in" to certain programs and each time you are, you sign a NDA for that program. In other words, there's no blanket NDA out there. This protects government employees from being prosecuted for doing exactly what Libby and Rove allegedly have done--repeating what they've heard without knowing the classification of what they've heard. So what would have to proved in their case is that they knew that Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent was classified (they would have be read in to a program involving agent status and this is not out of the question) and then they revealed that information. If they were read into such a program, it wouldn't matter what their reasons were for revealing the information, they would still have committed a crime. The same is true for Armitage, btw.

    Now you could make the argument that their general SECRET and TOP SECRET NDAs apply (they most certainly are read into a basic SECRET and TS clearance). But then you would have to prove without documentation that they new her status was SECRET. If that could be proved, they'd simply lose their clearances and possibly spend a few months in jail (violating SECRET information doesn't get you in major trouble. Heck, as I've pointed out again and again, even violating TS information doesn't seem to matter if you're giving it to a newspaper! :rolleyes:).
  21. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    The simple answer: Because of two words noted in your quote from Exec Order 12598: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."

    My understanding is that Rove and Libby both are saying that (as did Armitage) they were not aware that her status was classified due to improper notice.

    A weak defense when one understands how the agency operates, but it is their defense, nonetheless.
  22. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    Of course the the word negligently is in there too...

    but apparently the appropriate sanction is... nothing.
  23. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    Actually, Neo, I think my explanation above more directly addressess your question.
  24. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    Indeed it does, but as you point out here:
    But, as I read it, in the best case, if they didn't know they could still be facing sanctions under negligence. That is to say, the executive has it within his power to level appropriate sanctions.

    which is, as I said, apparently... nothing.
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    One thing to also keep in mind is that the sanctions should be comparable to similar breaches. There are quite a few other cases involving negligence (at most) that received little or no sanctions. Just because this one case has been made overly political, doesn't mean that it should result in more severe sanctions than comparable cases.

    Kimball Kinnison
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.