right-wing fanatic Marc Thiessen: WikiLeaks must be stopped

[..]

Originally Posted by WTF

Libby first learned of Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA in early June 2003 from Vice President Dick Cheney and proceeded to discuss her with six other government officials in the following days and months before disclosing her name to reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper in early July 2003

okay true, but AFAIK neither Judith Miller nor Matthew Cooper revealed it.

That Valerie Palme works for CIA was really quite widely known in certain circles -- as a rumor -- in Washington (and even in Europe.) e.g. I know that Eric Margolis knew it before Novak published it.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by ..

so far it has not even been shown that this private leaked anything to wikileaks.

Agreed. I said appears.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ..

okay true, but AFAIK neither Judith Miller nor Matthew Cooper revealed it.

Ok, they used better judgement than Novak. He still leaked her name.

Originally Posted by ..

That Valerie Palme works for CIA was really quite widely known in certain circles -- as a rumor -- in Washington (and even in Europe.) e.g. I know that Eric Margolis knew it before Novak published it.

And it is widely known that we weren't doing that well in Afganastan even before these wiki leaks. What is your point?

Like I said they are very similiar cases , unless you don't want them to be. Then depending if you lean to the left or the right you take a side. Those of us in the middle do not see a huge difference. So let this be another test to ones political slant.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The private appears to be treason while troops are at risk -- a death penalty offense. it.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed. I said appears.

No matter who leaked it....it still does not appear to rise to treason.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Are you people nutz? Equating this wikileaks private and Scooter Libby???

He didn't leak anything and the prosecutor knew it.

Actually, it is uncontested that he leaked Valerie Palme's name to the Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, an act that was in all probability a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. He claimed that he had learned this information from Tim Russert and was only confirming what Miller and Cooper already knew. But even confirmation is a leak and the fact that Miller and Cooper may have known the information already is irrelevant to the leak.

Granted, he was not tried for this crime because that would have required that the US prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Palme was a "covert operative" and would have allowed Libby's lawyers to cross examine the CIA about many things about selections, methods, and activities of covert officials. Instead, the U.S. Attorneys Office elected to go the the slam dunk charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Granted, he was not tried for this crime because that would have required that the US prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Palme was a "covert operative"

Which of course -- she wasn't. Which is why the whole fucking trial was political theater.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

No matter who leaked it....it still does not appear to rise to treason.

Unless the materials compromise troup movements, methods etc and gets someone killed in wartime. I ahve't wasted my time reading the stuff, but the Pentagon seems pretty damn pissed so I'm guessing it is not just background material.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Which of course -- she wasn't. Which is why the whole fucking trial was political theater.

I recall thinking that she was a covert operative who was not currently deployed based on my review of the law and the facts back at the time of the scandal. There is nothing that requires that a covert operative be currently deployed.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Unless the materials compromise troup movements, methods etc and gets someone killed in wartime. I ahve't wasted my time reading the stuff, but the Pentagon seems pretty damn pissed so I'm guessing it is not just background material.

You should read it. Nothing in it approaches troop movements, etc. It is mostly anecdotal reports of failures in the field. There are a few places where colaborator's names have not been redacted, but that's as bad as it gets. The reason that the Pentagon is pissed is 1) it shows that they can't keep their own documents secret; and 2) that the content of the documents show that the war is going just as badly as the public thinks it is, if not worse.

[..]

Originally Posted by WTF

Ok, they used better judgement than Novak. He still leaked her name.

And it is widely known that we weren't doing that well in Afganastan even before these wiki leaks.

Okay, you have a point here IMO. Agreed.

Still that only Libby got punished -- and not Rove and Armitage -- was kinda strange.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Which of course -- she wasn't. Which is why the whole fucking trial was political theater.

She was covert operative. In her normal life she used "Valerie Wilson", under cover she used "Valerie Plame" (her maiden name).

But I fully agree that this was political theater and HUMINT opera.

[..]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

2) that the content of the documents show that the war is going just as badly as the public thinks it is, if not worse.

e.g. from those documents one can clearly see that over the years the Taliban has perfected their game. The number of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) they plant sharply increases over the years.

Their strategy works well because training a bomb disposal expert takes 5 to 10 years and so the Taliban now design their IEDs mostly in a way to kill the bomb disposal experts.

[..]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

the Pentagon seems pretty damn pissed

well i guess when even Fox News is positive about this Wikileaks leak, the Pentagon realizes that they have some problem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQsBoYRE-WM

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You should read it. Nothing in it approaches troop movements, etc. It is mostly anecdotal reports of failures in the field. There are a few places where colaborator's names have not been redacted, but that's as bad as it gets. The reason that the Pentagon is pissed is 1) it shows that they can't keep their own documents secret; and 2) that the content of the documents show that the war is going just as badly as the public thinks it is, if not worse.

Well if thats all it is, I doubt there would be such a big stew about it. But I have no problem with the press disclosing that your guy is doing a shitty job running his war.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I recall thinking that she was a covert operative who was not currently deployed based on my review of the law and the facts back at the time of the scandal. There is nothing that requires that a covert operative be currently deployed.

Not currently deployed, but there were time limits on the definition (e.g., had been undercover within 5 years or something like that, that she didn't qualify for.) And as for the "secret name" Valarie Plame -- didn't she have some magazine spread under that name?

Yup, pure theater.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well if thats all it is, I doubt there would be such a big stew about it. But I have no problem with the press disclosing that your guy is doing a shitty job running his war.

It's impossible to do anything but a shitty job or running a war when 1) there is no definition of victory and 2) when you are using military means to resolve a political dispute. The only rational solution is to cut our losses and leave.

As to Libby, even if everything you right wing apologists say is true, none of that justifies anyone committing perjury or obstructing justice, especially a lawyer. (And before you start, Clinton's lies were not perjury because they were not about a "material fact.")

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And before you start, Clinton's lies were not perjury because they were not about a "material fact."

And even if you do start, he was impeached and lost his license to practice law. Even Nixon didn't suffer that.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And even if you do start, he was impeached and lost his license to practice law. Even Nixon didn't suffer that.

That is not a reasonable comparison. After Nixon lost the tapes case in the Supreme Court and the tapes in question were released he was told by allies in the Senate that once the House voted to impeach (and 3 articles had been voted by the Judiciary Committee) he had 16 Senators who would vote to acquit. Nixon then didn't lose his license because Ford pardoned him.