So Who Here Still Believes...

Gavik

Registered Member
#1
...that Cheney, Rove and Libby didn't conspire to leak Valerie Plame's identitiy after her husband, Joe Wilson, dared to stand up to their "evidence" for invading Iraq, and in doing so endangered America further by shuting down a crucial anti-terrorism resource, thus committing treason. Anyone? Anyone?
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#2
Clearly her name was leaked as an act of political revenge, however, I think it's also pretty clear that, given the lack of indictments for the leak, it probably wasn't illegal. IIRC, she hadn't been an active agent for years, but was instead working behind a desk at Langley.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
I love it how the left always shouts treason when a Republican so much as sneezes. Should we mention the Puerto Rican nationalist group that attempted to bomb various buildings in New York that Clinton pardoned? They were pardoned for lets see here... according to Wikipedia "convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations" So pardoning terrorists... sounds like treason to me.

It's a two way street Gavik....


 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#4
Clearly her name was leaked as an act of political revenge, however, I think it's also pretty clear that, given the lack of indictments for the leak, it probably wasn't illegal. IIRC, she hadn't been an active agent for years, but was instead working behind a desk at Langley.
Actually everything that I've read and heard indicates that she was at one time under deep cover. If she had been found out/captured/whatever, she would not have had diplomatic immunity and could be executed. So regardless of what she was doing at the time of the leak, anyone who worked for the cover company she had worked for was also outed and placed in danger as a result of the leak.
 

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
#5
Well I definatly believe her name was leaked as part of political revenge, which is extremely dangerous, irresponsbible, and probably does teater on the treason line depending on what her job was at the time.
Point is it probably could have gotten her killed, and if that happened all of those assholes should be tossed into prison and the key tossed.

Now thats not to say Pro2a isn't right to some extent or another. I think if the Democrats had done the same thing as this situation I think the republicans would jump down there throats just as fast.
This isn't a left or right issue, its a dickery issue, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find an administration that hasn't engaged in dickery at least a few times. Its just a matter of it blowing up in your face.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#6
Should we mention the Puerto Rican nationalist group that attempted to bomb various buildings in New York that Clinton pardoned? They were pardoned for lets see here... according to Wikipedia "convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations" So pardoning terrorists... sounds like treason to me.
No, we really shouldn't mention it because it's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Now, if I'd said something like "Democrats are righteous, republicans are evil, and this prooves it" then you'd have a valid point, but let's try not blaming Clinton in at least one topic.
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#7
Actually everything that I've read and heard indicates that she was at one time under deep cover. If she had been found out/captured/whatever, she would not have had diplomatic immunity and could be executed.
That's true. However, my understanding is that all that was leaked was that she worked for the CIA, not that she was or ever had been a field agent. Nor do I remember there ever being any evidence that Rover or Libby ever knew anything about her being a field agent. I'm pretty sure that both factors mean that the leak doesn't violate the particular law.


So regardless of what she was doing at the time of the leak, anyone who worked for the cover company she had worked for was also outed and placed in danger as a result of the leak.
Sure, and that's why it's irresponsible at best. But, this thread is about supposed treason, and however dirty it was (and it's pretty dirty, even by DC standards), the leak just wasn't illegal.


Point is it probably could have gotten her killed, and if that happened all of those assholes should be tossed into prison and the key tossed.
If she had been in the field at the time of the leak, there's no question people would have been indicted, and little doubt they would have been convicted, as well.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#8
That's true. However, my understanding is that all that was leaked was that she worked for the CIA, not that she was or ever had been a field agent. Nor do I remember there ever being any evidence that Rover or Libby ever knew anything about her being a field agent. I'm pretty sure that both factors mean that the leak doesn't violate the particular law.


Sure, and that's why it's irresponsible at best. But, this thread is about supposed treason, and however dirty it was (and it's pretty dirty, even by DC standards), the leak just wasn't illegal.


If she had been in the field at the time of the leak, there's no question people would have been indicted, and little doubt they would have been convicted, as well.
No offense, but I think that's either a little naive, or displaying blind faith in those in charge. I think it's far more sinister than most people on the right want to admit. The Bush Administration believes itself to be above the law, and so far it's been proven to be true.
 

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
#9
All I can say was it really worth the risk?
All for what revenge against her husband?
Reckless, irresponsible, bordering on criminal if you ask me.

If she worked for the CIA, no matter what she was doing, she was working for her country? Is this how we treat those who serve our country?
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#10
No offense, but I think that's either a little naive, or displaying blind faith in those in charge.
How is that either naive or blind faith? To say that they didn't break the law doesn't mean that I approve of their actions. All it means is that they managed to screw one of their critics without doing anything illegal.


The Bush Administration believes itself to be above the law, and so far it's been proven to be true.
I think it's more that they're, in general, willing to push as far as they can up against the edges of the law, especially when there are legal grey areas.