Liberals and the CIA

[DarrinS]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052970203706604574370311712840406.html





There is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officers. So I need everybody to be clear: We will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions.

—Barack Obama at CIA headquarters, April 2009.

Once upon a time, Valerie Plame Wilson was a hero to liberals everywhere, a covert CIA operative whose cover was blown by a vindictive Bush administration out to ruin its critics. Today, liberals within government and without are betraying covert CIA operatives as if it were the very essence of virtue. Consistency, principled or foolish, has never been a hobgoblin of the liberal mind.

Consider Attorney General Eric Holder's decision Monday to investigate and potentially prosecute about a dozen previously closed cases involving alleged detainee abuse by CIA officers or contractors. Whether those agents and contractors are innocent or guilty—or whether they were simply working within parameters they believed were necessary and permissible, and circumstances they deemed urgent, but which the Obama administration has retroactively decided were not—are matters that will be determined in due course. The 2004 CIA report on which Mr. Holder based his decision says that the most damaging allegations are "too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination regarding the facts."

What's nearly certain, however, is that the names of the agents will soon become a part of the public record, either directly or through leaks that the liberal press will have no scruple about printing. Last year, for instance, the New York Times published the name of a CIA officer who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This was despite the protests of the officer and the CIA that to identify him would "put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency," as the Times put it in an editor's note.

So much, then, for President Obama's solemn promises to the CIA troops. Nor is Mr. Holder's decision the only political missile tracing a course toward Langley.

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department is looking into allegations that military defense attorneys for top al Qaeda detainees had shown their clients photographs of CIA officers and contractors.

The pictures, some of which were "taken surreptitiously outside [the CIA officers'] homes," were gathered by an outfit called the John Adams Project, jointly sponsored by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The Project seeks to identify the interrogators to serve as witnesses if and when their clients are tried in federal court or by military commissions. "We are confident that no laws or regulations have been broken," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told the Post.

He's got to be kidding. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the law endlessly invoked in Mrs. Wilson's case, specifically proscribes anyone "in the course of a pattern of activities" from seeking to expose the identity of covert agents "to any individual not authorized to receive classified information." Equally plain is the penalty: "fined under Title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The Act was written in response to the public disclosure of the names of U.S. covert agents, at least one of whom, Athens station chief Richard Welch, was assassinated in 1975 by Greek terrorists. It was approved overwhelmingly in Congress. In a 2006 letter to this newspaper, Sen. John Kerry approvingly quoted former president George H.W. Bush's "admonition that those who expose our agents are 'the most insidious of traitors.'"

Mr. Kerry was objecting to an editorial warning that CIA officers would soon have to take out personal insurance against the risk of lawsuits and congressional subpoenas. But those officers will have considerably more to fear if the detainees they once interrogated learn their names and are able to get the word out to their associates (as the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul Rahman was able to get messages out of federal prison through his lawyer Lynn Stewart), assuming they don't get out themselves. In that case, more CIA agents will be gunned down in their homes—and the John Adamses of our day will have given demonstrably material support to terrorists.

Liberals have never liked the CIA, except when it suited their partisan purposes. That's fine: There's much not to like about the agency, and the U.S. might well be better off without its bungled operations and laughable intelligence estimates. But having shouted themselves hoarse over Mrs. Wilson, their enthusiasm for this new round of outing is a bit unseemly. Especially when lives are actually at stake. Especially when a liberal president has pledged to protect those lives.

[clambake]

how many detainees did valerie torture to death, mr. birther?

[101A]

how many detainees did valerie torture to death, mr. birther?


So her life was probably never in jeopardy. What's your point?

[clambake]

So her life was probably never in jeopardy. What's your point?

my point is that people bring up plame and completely dismiss the point that outing her for telling the truth was an act of revenge. it's also an act of treason.

[SpurNation]

Has anyone here ever taken in a house guest only to find their private lives soon turn into chaos because that person now knows too much information about what resides in your own home?

On a much grander scale....this is what would happen if the secrecy of U.S. agents is exposed to our enemies.

[fyatuk]

how many detainees did valerie torture to death, mr. birther?

How many did these people? As far as I can tell, no deaths by torture have been attributed by CIA personnel (a few have been attributed to Navy Seals).

It's a faulty argument anyway. If it's wrong to release the names of one operative, it's wrong to release any of them. If the did wrong, punish them internally if you can, otherwise fire them and incarcerate them. You don't release information on them while they are at large, though.

[doobs]

my point is that people bring up plame and completely dismiss the point that outing her for telling the truth was an act of revenge. it's also an act of treason.

Treason? Are you kidding me?

What happened to her was perfectly legal. Wrong, perhaps, but legal.

[LnGrrrR]

How many did these people? As far as I can tell, no deaths by torture have been attributed by CIA personnel (a few have been attributed to Navy Seals).

It's a faulty argument anyway. If it's wrong to release the names of one operative, it's wrong to release any of them. If the did wrong, punish them internally if you can, otherwise fire them and incarcerate them. You don't release information on them while they are at large, though.

I agree with this, for the most part. If there's no possible way to keep their name secret (ie they've broken a law and their name has to be released for some reason), then do such. However, all pains should be taken to keep names anonymous if possible.

[DarrinS]

how many detainees did valerie torture to death, mr. birther?


That's classified.

[clambake]

Treason? Are you kidding me?

What happened to her was perfectly legal. Wrong, perhaps, but legal.

i saw a guy give a speech to cia personnel at the cia headquarters.

he said outing an agent is an act of treason. you know what treason is, right?

[doobs]

i saw a guy give a speech to cia personnel at the cia headquarters.

he said outing an agent is an act of treason. you know what treason is, right?

I don't think you know what it is.

[DarrinS]

i saw a guy give a speech to cia personnel at the cia headquarters.

he said outing an agent is an act of treason. you know what treason is, right?


http://www.clickykeyboard.com/2005/keycaps/keys-058.jpg

[clambake]

I don't think you know what it is.

i know what it is. would you like to change it's definition for the traitors you still support?

[fyatuk]

i saw a guy give a speech to cia personnel at the cia headquarters.

he said outing an agent is an act of treason. you know what treason is, right?

The only crime defined in the constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

my point is that people bring up plame and completely dismiss the point that outing her for telling the truth was an act of revenge. it's also an act of treason.
So what did Armitage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)) have against Plame?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.clickykeyboard.com/2005/keycaps/keys-058.jpg
LOL... No Kidding...

Clam, don't you have a couple of these on you keyboard?

[doobs]

i know what it is. would you like to change it's definition for the traitors you still support?

Dumbass . . . I'm going to make this real simple for you.

Patrick Fitzgerald concluded early in his investigation that no one had broken the law in the leaking Plame's identity. Treason is against the law.

If you disagree with Fitzgerald, please explain, in detail, how anyone committed treason in the Plame Affair. The burden is on you.

[clambake]

So what did Armitage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)) have against Plame?

he envied her hair.

[clambake]

Dumbass . . . I'm going to make this real simple for you.

Patrick Fitzgerald concluded early in his investigation that no one had broken the law in the leaking Plame's identity. Treason is against the law.

If you disagree with Fitzgerald, please explain, in detail, how anyone committed treason in the Plame Affair. The burden is on you.

fitzgeralds conclusion........there's a fucking surprise, huh einstein?

[Wild Cobra]

he envied her hair.
So that's why he leaked her name? Why wasn't he prosecuted?

[clambake]

So that's why he leaked her name? Why wasn't he prosecuted?

there was going to have to be a fall guy, no matter how they tried to spin it.

but, they picked the right people to help them dodge the act of treason.

i guess they thought scooter was nothing more than shit on their shoe.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dumbass . . . I'm going to make this real simple for you.

Patrick Fitzgerald concluded early in his investigation that no one had broken the law in the leaking Plame's identity. Treason is against the law.

If you disagree with Fitzgerald, please explain, in detail, how anyone committed treason in the Plame Affair. The burden is on you.

Fitzgerald did acknowledge that outing her put her in danger. Putting an uncer cover CIA operative is bad, don't you agree?

[clambake]

Fitzgerald did acknowledge that outing her put her in danger. Putting an uncer cover CIA operative is bad, don't you agree?

doob is on a leash.

[doobs]

Admit it, you're a dumbass.



18 U.S.C. § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 3

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So that's why he leaked her name? Why wasn't he prosecuted?

Fitzgerald clearly stated that he couldn't verify the intent of the release so there was no way he could charge anyone. His example was perfect: If a picther hits a batter how do you know if it was on purpose? The only way to find that out is if the picther admits it.

[doobs]

Fitzgerald did acknowledge that outing her put her in danger. Putting an uncer cover CIA operative is bad, don't you agree?

Did you read what I wrote before? You'll find your answer.

[Wild Cobra]

Admit it, you're a dumbass.

18 U.S.C. § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

And people wonder why I have call democrats treasonous at times.

[clambake]

it was a violation of allegiance toward one's country. it gave comfort and aid to our enemies.

they did it because they got caught in a lie. that is some serious chickenshit.

[LnGrrrR]

That aid and comfort line is often taken out of context. The classical interpretation means some sort of PHYSICAL aid and comfort, not just a show of support.

[doobs]

it was a violation of allegiance toward one's country. it gave comfort and aid to our enemies.

they did it because they got caught in a lie. that is some serious chickenshit.

You lose at making your case.

It's not treason.

[clambake]

someone had to pay.

[Wild Cobra]

That aid and comfort line is often taken out of context. The classical interpretation means some sort of PHYSICAL aid and comfort, not just a show of support.That is not what I mean. I mean real aid and comfort to their cause.

When US citizens attack other citizens for fighting against terrorism, that is aid and comfort. I'll leave you with that simple generality. I'm sure along those lines you can remember some serious examples that emboldened the enemy.

[clambake]

When US citizens attack other citizens for fighting against terrorism, that is aid and comfort.
:downspin:

[Wild Cobra]

:downspin:
Verbal, and other media attacks. Sorry I didn't specify.

[clambake]

Verbal, and other media attacks. Sorry I didn't specify.

you didn't have to specify.

i know what you've been programmed to say.

too bad that sucker had to pay, huh cob?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Now I see conservatives pointing to the ltter of the law when it comes to defining treason... yet with the healthcare debate they don't criticize the bill based on it's merits rather they make stuff up to scare people..

So I guess we need some clarification.. Is it the letter the word that matters?

[Wild Cobra]

Now I see conservatives pointing to the ltter of the law when it comes to defining treason... yet with the healthcare debate they don't criticize the bill based on it's merits rather they make stuff up to scare people..

So I guess we need some clarification.. Is it the letter the word that matters?
All I have seen is on merit. Have you read any of HB 3200?

[George Gervin's Afro]

All I have seen is on merit. Have you read any of HB 3200?

Yes. I don't see socailism or single payer system though? Would that mean anyone who uses this language is a liar?

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. I don't see socailism or single payer system though? Would that mean anyone who uses this language is a liar?
No, because of the rules and regulations, they would put private insureres out of business.

Most of the bill just adds more layers of bureaucracy without addressing real health care practices.

Do you call that health care reform? I call it destroying health care.

[ChumpDumper]

No, because of the rules and regulations, they would put private insureres out of business.

Most of the bill just adds more layers of bureaucracy without addressing real health care practices.

Do you call that health care reform? I call it destroying health care.You're just spouting propaganda!

[Wild Cobra]

You're just spouting propaganda!

Show me the real health care added in the bill please. How many pages. Maybe a dozen? How about the other 1,005 pages?

[ChumpDumper]

Propaganda!

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, because of the rules and regulations, they would put private insureres out of business.

Most of the bill just adds more layers of bureaucracy without addressing real health care practices.

Do you call that health care reform? I call it destroying health care.

With all due respect you can't have it both ways. Either you follow the letter of the law (or legislation) or you keep quiet about it.

[fyatuk]

Yes. I don't see socailism or single payer system though? Would that mean anyone who uses this language is a liar?

Well, the public option is certainly socialist, but we have a long history of slight socialism in this country, so whatever.

But the bill (HR3200) is VERY fascist. The restrictions placed on private insurers are insane. The government has to approve you policy before you can sell it. The government tells you what your rate differentials can and can't be. The government tells you what benefits you can and cannot exclude. The government assigns the language you can use in your policy. The government declares a loss ratio you must maintain, and then tells you how to refund money until you get there.

And then despite all that (and with that much power to wield), the government is instructed to get people to move to the public option, whatever it takes.

One thing, rather early in HR3200 that makes the bill crap to me is that ALL individual policies must be purchased through the government sponsored Exchange. That is complete crap.

[ChumpDumper]

And then despite all that (and with that much power to wield), the government is instructed to get people to move to the public option, whatever it takes.What page is that on?

[Wild Cobra]

With all due respect you can't have it both ways. Either you follow the letter of the law (or legislation) or you keep quiet about it.
You miss what I say. HB 3200 changes the law so dramatically, it will, without doubt, put nearly all private insurers out of business. Only the very wealth will be able to afford to have private policies. We will only be left with government run insurance.

[ChumpDumper]

it will, without doubt, put nearly all private insurers out of business.Prove it.

[doobs]

Stop talking about healthcare in this thread.

[fyatuk]

What page is that on?

I take that back, I must have misread pg 25 last time.


(b) BUILDING ON INTERIM RULES.—In implementing subsection (a), the Commissioner shall build on the definition and methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the amendments made by section 161 for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio. Such methodology shall be set at the highest level medical loss ratio possible that is designed to ensure adequate participation by QHBP offering entities, competition in the health insurance market in and out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services.

I'm no longer sure what the heck this section is referring to. I'm not even sure if this is what I saw originally, since I got sick of making notes while reading (and even then I didn't get more than halfway through since it was already obvious crap). It's been a little while since I was working my way through it.

[Wild Cobra]

Stop talking about healthcare in this thread.
You're right. Sorry about that. I should have never answered George's question. I hate it myself when threads get sidetracked, but I don't realize it till it's already derailed.

[LnGrrrR]

That is not what I mean. I mean real aid and comfort to their cause.

When US citizens attack other citizens for fighting against terrorism, that is aid and comfort. I'll leave you with that simple generality. I'm sure along those lines you can remember some serious examples that emboldened the enemy.

If some Americans are giving MATERIAL aid to the enemy, then yes. Slinging insults is not material aid. Hence why I brought up the point about physical aid. Ideological aid isn't usually considered as "aid and comfort" because you can twist that anyway you want it.

Heck, if a terrorist goes to Starbacks and orders a coffee before he blows himself up, did I offer him "comfort" in the form a delicious latte? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Verbal, and other media attacks. Sorry I didn't specify.

Do you not believe in Freedom of Speech?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you not believe in Freedom of Speech?
Do you believe in shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is none?

[LnGrrrR]

Do you believe in shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is none?

I love when conservatives bring this up.

When yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, there are actual safety concerns... just like the whole outing of a CIA agent discussed in another thread.

However, being supportive of a terrorist, or against the military, does not engender any 'safety' concerns. "Emboldening" anyone is not a clearly defined action, and so we should not look to curtail freedom of speech in this area.

Surely WC, you wouldn't use that sad "Fire in a crowded theater" example to argue for the Fairness Doctrine, would you?

[Wild Cobra]

I love when conservatives bring this up.

When yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, there are actual safety concerns... just like the whole outing of a CIA agent discussed in another thread.

However, being supportive of a terrorist, or against the military, does not engender any 'safety' concerns. "Emboldening" anyone is not a clearly defined action, and so we should not look to curtail freedom of speech in this area.

Surely WC, you wouldn't use that sad "Fire in a crowded theater" example to argue for the Fairness Doctrine, would you?
I wish I had total recall of news events. I could show you some real disturbing things. There were repeated reports in the Arab world that things the liberals were saying here, was influencing their efforts to continue attacks.

[clambake]

I wish I had total recall of news events.
that would help

I could show you some real disturbing things.
please, no more pictures of yourself.

There were repeated reports in the Arab world that things the liberals were saying here, was influencing their efforts to continue attacks.
i remember those reports, and they were confirmed to be bogus.

[Wild Cobra]

please, no more pictures of yourself.
You mean you didn't like that bowling pic? I thought that would be right up your alley.

[clambake]

You mean you didn't like that bowling pic? I thought that would be right up your alley.

please don't attempt to be cute.

[LnGrrrR]

I wish I had total recall of news events. I could show you some real disturbing things. There were repeated reports in the Arab world that things the liberals were saying here, was influencing their efforts to continue attacks.

Who cares if it "influenced" them? Aid and comfort has historically been designated as material aid and comfort, not just words of encouragement. Words are just that, words. If you want to say, "Go Arabs! I hope you kill more Americans!" every day, on every webpage, by all means go ahead. You have a right to Freedom of Speech, even stupid, racist speech that may 'embolden' or 'influence' terrorists.

[Wild Cobra]

Who cares if it "influenced" them? Aid and comfort has historically been designated as material aid and comfort, not just words of encouragement. Words are just that, words. If you want to say, "Go Arabs! I hope you kill more Americans!" every day, on every webpage, by all means go ahead. You have a right to Freedom of Speech, even stupid, racist speech that may 'embolden' or 'influence' terrorists.OK, we disagree. Myself, I have a hard time controlling myself from beating people who support the enemy. I want to hurt them, bad. I guess you just want to discuss it with them. You're a better man than I.

[clambake]

OK, we disagree. Myself, I have a hard time controlling myself from beating people who support the enemy. I want to hurt them, bad. I guess you just want to discuss it with them. You're a better man than I.

what people?

[LnGrrrR]

OK, we disagree. Myself, I have a hard time controlling myself from beating people who support the enemy. I want to hurt them, bad. I guess you just want to discuss it with them. You're a better man than I.

I don't agree with them anymore than I do the KKK. But that doesn't mean I think we should be allwoed to go up and punch KKK members in the face either.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't agree with them anymore than I do the KKK. But that doesn't mean I think we should be allwoed to go up and punch KKK members in the face either.
I don't think we should either, but that's what my instinct is to do. Don't you have any conflicts within yourself?

[ChumpDumper]

Wild Cobra: propagandist....internet tough guy....cyberstalker....flaglot....

[clambake]

Wild Cobra: propagandist....internet tough guy....cyberstalker....flaglot....

and you forgot "welfare recipient hating welfare baby."

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't agree with them anymore than I do the KKK. But that doesn't mean I think we should be allwoed to go up and punch KKK members in the face either.

It's all I can do to keep from addressing you as "Brock".:(

[Wild Cobra]

I went to the Roger Hedgecock website (http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/Default.asp) to listen to his show, and he has this programming note for one of today's show notes:

CIA Issue: Liberals and the CIA

The show started 23 minutes at RadioAmerica (http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?name=ra).

[LnGrrrR]

It's all I can do to keep from addressing you as "Brock".:(

Haha! Feel free :) I love that show, and am eagerly awaiting Season 4. :D

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think we should either, but that's what my instinct is to do. Don't you have any conflicts within yourself?

I've admitted in another thread that, if I had a family member or friend that was being threatened, I might torture someone myself. Just the same that if someone had kidnapped my wife, I'd want to do horrible things to them.

I don't think that would necessarily make it right, and I definitely don't want to enshrine my capability to do such into law though.