Today's Note From a Madman
Wednesday, July 6, 2005
Jack Responds to the CIA Leak
You are apparently missing the entire point.
Who gives a rats (behind) about how many leaks there are in Bush's White House.
The fact of the matter is that an undercover agent's identity was deliberately blown, putting her and her entire family in danger and undermining the integrity of the entire CIA undercover operation at a time when this Administration is on record to strengthen the agency. This was a flat out blackmail attempt to cover up terrible inadequacies.
There are limits as to how far members of the press can go, and they should be held accountable for passing on information that puts people and our country at risk. If you people can not see this, then I feel sorry for you.
These "scoop at any cost" morons have absolutely no right to pass on deliberate politically inspired leaks that put peoples lives, and the country at risk. These are the same greedy people who brought us the Princess Dianne tragedy.
This requires a full and open investigation. It is a matter that supersedes "Watergate" in it's malignant evil; in it's attempt to intimidate ANYONE who wishes to expose a clear and eminent danger, and overreaching constitutional law to justify their actions and subsequent silence.
Incidentally, where does Kerry and the other Party stalwarts stand on this issue?
Most of these jokers wouldn't know an excellent wedge issue, if it hit them square between the eyes.
The Law and More
I have to say, Jack... I agree with you (but don't let it go to your head). The law is very simple. If you come across information such as the identity of an undercover agent, you are not allowed to report it. Period. There's a whole page on why Robert Novak should be in jail with links to the law signed by then-President Ronald Reagan, both Novak articles, President Reagan's remarks and more starting at http://www.nationalview.org/novak1.htm.
"The Congress has carefully drafted this bill so that it focuses only on those who would transgress the bounds of decency; not those who would exercise their legitimate right of dissent. This carefully drawn act recognizes that the revelation of the names of secret agents adds nothing to legitimate public debate over intelligence policy. It is also a signal to the world that while we in this democratic nation remain tolerant and flexible, we also retain our good sense and our resolve to protect our own security and that of the brave men and women who serve us in difficult and dangerous intelligence assignments.
"And that's why we must now summon all the nations of the world to a crusade for freedom and a global campaign for the rights of the individual, and you (our undercover agents) are in the forefront of this campaign. You must be the cutting edge of freedom in peace and war, and in the shadowy world in between, you must serve in silence and carry your special burden. But let me assure you, you're on the winning side, and your service is one which free men will thank you and future generations honor you.
"It's with special pride, then, that I now sign this piece of legislation into law. Thank you, and God bless you."
-President Ronald Reagan, June 23, 1982
Now, here is the law and where people like Robert Novak, Matthew Cooper and especially KARL ROVE are wrong and criminal (I excluded Judith Miller because she didn't print the name of Valerie Plame):
TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Translation in the Plame case: Anyone who had access to Mrs. Wilson's identity
Karl Rove and both of the White House sources cited by Robert Novak must have had access. We know that Karl Rove was not, at the time, "authorized" to view this information. We know it was "intentional". How could it have been anything else?
What Rove's "people" are placing in question is the word "knowingly", which never appears in the law. Did Karl Rove "knowingly" release the name of Valerie Plame? Is it enough that he might have said something like, "Ambassador Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA operative, recommended that her husband speak to the African officials due to his relationship with them." Last I looked, Joe Wilson had only one wife working for the CIA.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information.
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
This is where Karl Rove and the "other White House sources" broke the second part of the law. Since when are Robert Novak, Matt Cooper or Judith Miller "authorized" to learn the names of undercover CIA operatives?
Funny (as in ironic, not "ha-ha"), but Rove could actually plead that he never had "authorized access", thus he isn't guilty if anything. Rove then could name his source or sources. I wonder who that could have been?
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Karl Rove should plea ignorance here. He could claim that he didn't think releasing the identity of a "deep undercover" CIA agent with 20 years experience would "harm the United States."
"it was not much of a secret,"
-Robert Novak, in his October 1, 2003 follow-up to betraying his country, excuse for releasing Valerie Plame's name
"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: 'Oh, you know about it.' The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."
-Novak, in the same column
So here, Robert Novak was attempting to, and succeeding at "tricking" a senior White House official into confirming a story he already knew to be true.
Hey Bob, if "it was not much of a secret'" then why did you need "confirmation"?
"in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents," and you,
Bob, should be
sharing a cell with all others involved,
you lying, hypocritical son-of-a-(okay, okay... I promised
not to use profanity in Madman,
but if ever there was a need for it, it is now).
Joe "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
-Novak, in his first column, July 14, 2003
I wonder what President Reagan would say about this? George H.W. Bush, how can you hold your tongue? You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Staff Sgt. Jeremy Brown, 26 of Mabscott, West Virginia died Sunday in Mosul when his Humvee rolled over. Staff Sgt. Brown leaves behind a twin brother, Jason as well as a younger brother, Seth
Rosemary Brown, his wife had also been in the military. They have one child, a son, Seth, 3.
This was Sgt. Brown's second tour in Iraq.
A "Nobel" Quote
"rock is a link between young people."
-Jan Simonsen, a former right wing, and now independent member of the Norwegian parliament, after nominating Bob Geldof for the Nobel Peace Prize
I actually bought the album (yes, I said album) that contained the only hit the Boomtown Rats, Bob Geldof's band, ever had here in America that I can remember. It was a song titled "I Don't Like Mondays" about the student who shot and killed others and gave for her reason, "I don't like Mondays. This lightens up the day."
Bob Geldof got the rock world off their collective behinds 20-some years ago to help try and stop hunger around the world, and especially in Africa. He called it Band-Aid.
This past week, millions took part in a global rock experience called Live-8, and Mr. Geldof was at the helm again. The goal is to get the G8 members to recognize the plight of the world's hungry and help them, plain and simple.
Bob, you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, the money that comes with it and a Queen's knighthood.
Let's hope its not all for naught.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org