« "The Life Aquatic" - Movie Review | Main | The Niger Forgeries »

26 October 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

J i O

Richard,

As far as I can determine you're the first to claim "that Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights..."

It begs the question, what was the damage done to the CIA? Are you aware of any damage assessment the agency has made?

Karen

I've been very hopeful that Fitzgerald will be thorough and meticulous in his charges.

And although the *anticipation* is "killer" (but No more so for the White House operatives waiting for the shoe to drop) that he is doing everything to protect his case and the evidence to get to CONVICTIONs.

So, for those of us hoping to remove this vicious bAdministrative CANCER on the body politic via the LAW, this will be a good moment.

:-)

CaseyL

There have been rumors of one, possibly two, agents killed as a result of disclosing Plame's, and Brewster-Jennings', status as NOC and cover company.

If those rumors are true, and if they can be proved, that changes everything about this case. A capital espionage charge becomes a possibility.

CaseyL

There are rumors that one, possibly two, agents were killed after Plame and Brewster-Jennings were outed.

If true, and if provable, that changes everything. Espionage charges are possible. Death-penalty espionage charges.

Jerry

Where are the rumors of agents being killed documented? Can you please point to a url with that information.

Thank you.

Leila Hudson

Can I get your response to my notion - played out on my blog - that discrediting Wilson was a cover for outing Brewster Jennings and that Judith Miller and Cheney's WHIG were engaged in a rival "counterproliferation" project. I base this on Miller's Aspen Middle East strategy paper entitled "counterproliferation after iraq".
Thanks
Leila

conservative

Personally I find it disturbing that many seem to think that an individual has a right to determine what secret information should be secret and what shouldn't and release it freely if they personally determine that it will "not damage" the CIA or some other government interest.

This is a slippery slope.

I note that such individuals also tend to hold that it is ok to lie to investigaters are grand juries if they believe the investigation is misplaced, for example if it examines "business as normal."

I believe that when we decriminalize lying to police, prosecuters and grand juries engaged in investigations that we undermine our capacity to seek justice.

Thus Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying about Monica even though it was not central to the investigation.

The right is staking out a position far more subversive to our nation than the left. Ellsberg and others claimed the right to violate secrecy laws based on the claim that this served the national good. One can dispute the validity of these specific acts of civil disobedience, but they were based on principle.

The right is aserting that their side can reveal secrets for partisan gain and that those partisans should be the ones to determine whether or not such acts are wrong.

This is a decline into narcissism and the "me me me ! it's all about me!" ethic. It also is an argument for a complete relativity of values. The rule of law is deemed irrelevant, what matters is whether or not you are one of the "good" people fighting the "evil" people.

It is far more subversive to our traditonal values than the nonsense postulated on the left because it renders as totally irrelevant even the concept of citizenship or integrity.

Then to add insult to injury it claims to represent our traditions and to defend them.

In daily context it is equivalent to telling a cop:

"It was ok for me to go 110 because I decided it was safe, what damage was done?"

"It's alright for me to lie to you because I didn't want to get in trouble."

This is *not* the way to overturn unjust laws or regulations.

But of course that isn't the point. The goal of the right is to make their personal desires and opinions the ultimate rule.

On this as on a number of other issues, traditional, old fashioned conservatives find themselves in conflict with the ruling ethos of the Republican party.

Jeff in CA

Jerry,
No definitive info, but lots of relevant info. Check out http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/25/191633/61 and set comments as "Flat" and scroll down to the 30th comment.

dk

conservative,

glad to hear your very reasonable point of view. hope you were saying this BEFORE the election as well.

steve d

One minor correction: you state that Fitzgerald has the Italian parliament's investigation "[T]hanks to a letter of February, 2004 which Fitzgerald asked for and obtained expaneed authority."

If you are referring to his February 6 letter to then-acting Attorney General James B. Comey, what Fitzgerald actually did was request and receive clarification that Comey had already authorized him to investigate and prosecute not only the disclosure of Plame's identity but also any crimes committed during the investigation (perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.).

The idea that Fitzgerald sought permission to stray from some narrow original mandate is false, but is being used by many in the media to cast him as overzealous and partisan.

Comey's letter can be found on Fitzgerald's website

Jalaluddin Abdullah

If Valerie Plame was working on the forgery case or anything related, maybe a charge along the lines of interfering with a government officer in the execution of his duties might be in the sealed indictment?

Gary L.

"Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights." WRONG!

"Others are to be named as well, these source said. According to U.S. officials close to the case an bill of indiictment has been in existence before October 17 which named five people." WRONG!

You need to get new 'sources' Richard.

RJJ

Gary, are you are claiming you have been able to distinguish signal from noise in this environment? If not, sod off.

Open your ears; for which of you will stop
The vent of hearing when loud Rumour speaks?
I, from the orient to the drooping west,
Making the wind my post-horse, still unfold
The acts commenced on this ball of earth:
Upon my tongues continual slanders ride,
The which in every language I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.
...
Rumour is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures
And of so easy and so plain a stop
That the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
The still-discordant wavering multitude,
Can play upon it. But what need I thus
My well-known body to anatomize
Among my household?
...
And not a man of them brings other news
Than they have learn'd of me: from Rumour's tongues
They bring smooth comforts false, worse than
true wrongs.

Claud Briton

Thanks, Gary L., I've noticed a few of Richard Sales' sources have been WRONG, and you say. We gotta hold their feet to the fire!

Researchconcerned

Estimate Stone,cost army too plastic modern provide leg box of touch player justice egg buy survive expensive separate all quiet need lie play grey sheet attention theatre show bind garden population moment heart field absolutely blow effectively somewhere nobody property component around late him trouble situation act ministry procedure station transfer discipline mind border early lay money list half operate project their sale beneath exhibition border test hope identify mention expert car mountain theme measure distance thought tomorrow nation balance us bedroom most design against possibly shape couple hotel

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad