Libby Found Guilty

[shinerbock]

I fully agree that we should protect our agents. I think it was a mistake to let the leak get out. However, Fitzgerald couldn't get anything substantive. I'm not trying to be dismissive of the magnitude involved with revealing an agent's cover, but what we seem to be dealing with is a lapse in judgment that thankfully resulted in little harm. If it turns out that there was a political vendetta against Wilson, I'm with you that everyone involved should pay. However, the only obvious spite I see is the hatred the Wilson's had for the administration.

Unfortunately, as we can all agree, this "scandal" took a political turn. The left isn't pissed off because the VP's office made a mistake and outted an agent, they're upset because they outted a liberal agent who's husband was railing against the administration.

I don't agree that Libby should pay dearly for this. Here's a guy who has devoted himself to public service and got caught up in a situation handled poorly on all sides. I'm not taking a no harm-no foul position, but prison would be ridiculous in my opinion.

I still don't understand why there wasn't more focus on other figures, like Armitage. I guess he's not connected enough to feed the beast in this instance.

[agzg]

Armitage, I agree, should be facing much much much much more than he has in this issue. In my opinion, he's the true snake, whether or not he was "told to" by other people - it's like when an officer in the military tells an enlistedman to do something that is WRONG - the military expects the enlistedman not to follow the order.

I'm not pissed on the left side, right side, up side, down side... Wilson's "hatred" for the administration is his political opinion... none of my beezwax as far as I'm concerned. But... Novak's column was a response to Wilson's Op-Ed piece. Retaliation.

I'm sure there's a lot more harm to it than what we know without access to classified information - she was, after all, part of the counter-proliferation operation in regard to Iraq.

Fitzgerald got caught up in the legaleese of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act... Was she living overseas for 6 years? Was she working overseas and living at home for 6 years? Was it within 5 years?

Too many questions to go that route... in fact, I'd think it'd be very hard to get someone convicted that way. That's one of those things where it's gotta be the exactly right case to get someone convicted - the law is written in such a way that allows a lot of reasonable doubt because it's just too damned confusing.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Armitage, I agree, should be facing much much much much more than he has in this issue. In my opinion, he's the true snake, whether or not he was "told to" by other people - it's like when an officer in the military tells an enlistedman to do something that is WRONG - the military expects the enlistedman not to follow the order.

I'm not pissed on the left side, right side, up side, down side... Wilson's "hatred" for the administration is his political opinion... none of my beezwax as far as I'm concerned. But... Novak's column was a response to Wilson's Op-Ed piece. Retaliation.

I'm sure there's a lot more harm to it than what we know without access to classified information - she was, after all, part of the counter-proliferation operation in regard to Iraq.

Fitzgerald got caught up in the legaleese of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act... Was she living overseas for 6 years? Was she working overseas and living at home for 6 years? Was it within 5 years?

Too many questions to go that route... in fact, I'd think it'd be very hard to get someone convicted that way. That's one of those things where it's gotta be the exactly right case to get someone convicted - the law is written in such a way that allows a lot of reasonable doubt because it's just too damned confusing.

I completely understand what you're saying with that, but IMO going after Libby serves no genuine purpose. Novaks column was returning fire against Wilson, but how that came about will probably always be unclear. I don't care what Wilson's opinion is, but when a liberal uses information gained in a governmental capacity to enact an agenda, I think people have a right to be concerned. Of course theres nothing for him to get in legal trouble for, but it annoys me that people are acting like he's just some innocent governmental actor who got worked over because he didn't side with the administration.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I completely understand what you're saying with that, but IMO going after Libby serves no genuine purpose. Novaks column was returning fire against Wilson, but how that came about will probably always be unclear. I don't care what Wilson's opinion is, but when a liberal uses information gained in a governmental capacity to enact an agenda, I think people have a right to be concerned. Of course theres nothing for him to get in legal trouble for, but it annoys me that people are acting like he's just some innocent governmental actor who got worked over because he didn't side with the administration.

The reason they've gone after Libby is that Libby knew that Plame was a covert agent, and, while Armitage's comments were published first, he did reveal her to Judith Miller just days later. If we're going for legality in regard to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, the one thing it is clear on is knowingly revealing the identity. Armitage, according to what he's said about it, which isn't much, knew that she worked for the CIA, but did not know that she was a clandestine officer, much less that she was on non-official cover (meaning she did not have diplomatic immunity and, if caught, would face espionage charges in whatever country she happened to be operating).

In my mind, Plame should never have been involved with Wilson. Her connection with him compromised her cover and opened her up for outing from political opponents, etc. He never should have EVER EVER mentioned his trip to Africa - he had as heavy a hand in outing her as many others in this case, IMO.

For the movie - they say that the stars in consideration for it are Richard Gere and Sharon Stone. Stone I can see - Plame's a pretty blonde, Stone's a pretty blonde... ok... But Richard Gere? Come on. Wilson is not, nor will he ever be, nor has he ever been, as attractive as Richard Gere.

I mean, Chris Cooper doesn't look like Robert Hanssen either, and O'Neil definitely doesn't look like Ryan Phillipe, but even considering Wilson to be anywhere on par with Richard Gere is offending to this Gere fan!

[shinerbock]

I was under the impression that they didn't have very much evidence pointing to Libby's knowledge that she was a covert agent. I read this as recently as yesterday, but I guess it could be wrong.

I just don't think the movie will be very exciting. Haven't seen Breach yet, but I want to. O'Neill went to Auburn.

[agzg]

There's no physical evidence - very much a "he said" etc type of thing but it definitely is easier to point to Libby as knowingly telling vs. Armitage.

I will not go see a movie in which Richard Gere is chosen to portray Wilson - no matter how much I love Richard Gere.

Breach is good - There are some points that are completely fabricated (there's one scene that when you see it you'll be like "um... I highly doubt that happened" and if you PM me after you see it I'll verify which scene is completely fabricated if you like), but it's pretty good. I've been studying Hanssen for a couple of classes this semester and didn't even know Breach was about him - I can't believe I didn't catch that it was about him in the previews I saw, in fact I didn't even know it was about a true story (I think I turned my brain off that day?).

The main thing I didn't like about it is that they didn't really get into the tradecraft of all of that... A lot of people who aren't pretty well educated as far as spying goes won't have a clue what it means to do a dead drop until they see Hanssen do is... and don't understand that even though Hanssen is completely brilliant - he's an idiot to pick that dead drop spot.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I just don't think the movie will be very exciting.

You must not be taking into consideration that Hollywood just might possibly embellish the story to add a little drama and excitement. Maybe?

Seriously, is there already a movie in the works, or is it just specualtion?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You must not be taking into consideration that Hollywood just might possibly embellish the story to add a little drama and excitement. Maybe?

Seriously, is there already a movie in the works, or is it just specualtion?

According to Wikipedia it's already in the works. Scheduled for release this summer from Warner Bros.

[UGAalum94]

MysticCat, you are correct about Russert; he did deny what Libby claimed. The quote from the juror I read yesterday basically said that it was implausible that Libby would have forgotten the information. (I misremembered Russert's testimony as more ambiguous than it was, but I read up on it last night.)

I'm not that worried about firing US attorneys. I think we can ride out the next couple of years (a year and three quarters, but who's counting?) without too much trouble. Of course I don't know; I hope I'm right.

I don't think Bush has been a particularly good president, but let's remember what our choices were.

Wilson never should have been the one to go on the trip, period. Did people imagine that no one would ask why Wilson was chosen? What would have been an appropriate and honest response to that other than outing his wife?

And to follow up on a previous discussion about the media, does this conviction seem anything like the scale of Iran-Contra, and yet that's in the first paragraph of almost every story? Sure it's the first conviction of an administration official since, but I think their overplaying it.

[RACooper]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - and I'll try and do so in as a completely non-biased and neutral way as possible...

While Plame did no fit the strict/legal definition of a "covert" operative, the revealing of her identity did compromise a CIA 'front company' which then compromised any of the operations and operatives (covert and otherwise) connected to that company - so while strictly speaking the letter of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, there is some legal wrangling over whether the spirit of the Act was infringed upon.

However all that aside, the revealing of her status as an agent is a clear violation of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, since her status as an agent and the CIA's front company wasn't declassified - as to who is accountable in the chain of disclousure (Rove, Cheney, Libby)that is another arguement for the courts.

[KillarneyRose]

Totally irrelevant but somewhat interesting:

Valerie Plame is a Pi Phi from Penn State.