home

Valerie Plame Investigation Review

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:36:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times profiles columnist Robert Novak and recaps the investigation into who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

< Bush Inauguration Too Costly for His Younger Supporters | New York's Legal Aid Strugges to Stay Afloat >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Valerie Plame Investigation Review | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#1)
    by cp on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:50:14 PM EST
    "Revealing a spy is treason." i thought that as well, when i first read mr. novak's column. apparently, it requires a bit more than that to commit "treason". in fact, per the article, it doesn't appear that novak is even in violation of the fed law against publicizing the identity of a covert agent; he is not a government official. the gov't official who provided plame's real identity to novak would appear to be the one who would actually be chargeable under this statute. at least, that's the way i read it. it explains why novak has never been charged with a crime. this would be congress' failure, not novak's.

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:37:28 AM EST
    On the contrary, that is intentionally "aiding our enemies" which is the definition of treason in the Constitution. In its potential deadliness to millions of Americans, that act of treason is a direct breach of national security. Someone doing that can be arrested summarily by the FBI any minute of the day the Executive orders it. But clearly the White House is complicit in the treason. No petty lawyering is protecting Novak. It certainly ain't the First Amendment. This was not a protected act of a reporter. It was a conspiracy to damage the national security of the United States, to abet the private politics of the current unelected president. The brazeness of these crimes doesn't lessen their severity one bit. --

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:13:48 AM EST
    I think cp is referring directly to the 1992(?)legislation that makes it a crime to out a CIA operative and Paul is referring to the constitutional crime of treason. I believe cp is correct that Novak cannot be prosecuted under the more recent legislation where Boots, Cheney, Rummy or Dubya could. However, we are in wild west mode and the likes of Jim are suggesting we just line up suspected insurgents and shoot them, so I point out they don't have the same enthusiasm for lining up over-zealous treasonous americans and shooting them. Unless, they are blue state affiliates, I guess. We never had it so good.

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#4)
    by cp on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    correct ca, that was the law i was referring to, not the constitutional charge of treason. by the way paul, if you feel that strongly about it, i believe you have the right, as a citizen, to file a complaint with the fbi, charging mr. novak with treason. of course, in an age when the gov't itself advertizes it's intent to go to war on cnn, and provides the timetable for that war to all the world's major media, you might have a hard row to hoe getting the fbi to respond. what foreign enemy did novak secretly disclose that information to? when was he hired by the gov't? if novak is guilty of treason, than so is every media outlet that reported the decision to go to war against iraq, afghanistan and iraq. ann coulter throws that term around pretty loosely as well, and she's a lawyer. i have yet to hear of her actually contacting the fbi regarding anyone she's accused of it yet. i expect i won't either. but paul, do let us know how it turns out, we'll be looking forward to seeing you on the 6 o'clock news.

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    Come on, cp, be reasonable. If Plame and her network worked on issues of nuclear (or nucular) materials control under the guise of being energy consultants, we are talking about treason to all of our enemies who ever intend to use dirty bombs or standard nuclear weapons against us. For right now, that probably includes al qaeda and any other militant organization who can justify setting off a weapon against a civilian population. The reality is that no one gets prosecuted for treason. What was the charge that was used against the kid from Marin? I don't think it was treason. Though any effort that he might have made or contemplated to harm an american civilian population probably is nothing compared to the damage that Novak did to the CIA's power to prevent such an event by outing Plame and her network. There are traitors and then there are traitors.

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    Beyond that, the truth is that Plame or the CIA that was being warned off by this piece of cloak'n'dagger may have been in danger of turning up information on USPNAC nuclear materials crimes. Quite obviously, we are discussing the facts. The facts are undeniable, including the fact that Bush's protestations that he would get to the bottom of the leak are of a piece with his promise that ObL would be brought to justice, or his promise that he had proof of WMD in Iraq which he would share with the public in due time (and never did). The man is an outright liar, coward, and traitor. Politics doesn't cover treason for long. It isn't for me to contact the FBI...they have plenty of video of me expressing my outrage at the coup and its many, many lies. Consider them contacted. When we return to legal government, quite a few of the neocon heroes will be in shackles. Oh happy day. --

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    Well said, Paul.

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    Again, where is PPJ on Novak and American security secrets? PPJ?

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#9)
    by cp on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 07:04:12 PM EST
    actually, there haven't been many treason cases brought, as it turns out. the gov't relies mostly on the espionage statutes, with regards to spies, etc. i just did a little quick research, and i think i have figured out why novak hasn't been charged with treason. he doesn't meet the standard established by both article III, Section 3, Clause 1, of the constitution and case law. precedent would seem to run against the gov't in his situation. it would appear that, in order to be charged with treason, one must have "treasonous intent", not merely commit an overt act. much like any criminal charge, you must intend the activity to be criminal. though you might have given "aid and comfort to the enemy", you must do so knowingly, with the express intent of causing harm to the united states, for that action to be treasonous. of course, it's always possible we could somehow convince mr. novak to start a war against the united states, that would probably work. care to opine on this tl?

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:24:02 PM EST
    "On the contrary, that is intentionally "aiding our enemies" which is the definition of treason in the Constitution." (me, above) If you don't think Novak intentionally did this, or that 'precedent' governs, you're being real Christmas charitable. This act damaged this country, and gave aid to our enemies, and was OVERT AND INTENTIONAL. It was not a mistake, and the if I'm not mistaken the CIA contacted Novak to try and get him not to publish, but he ignored their cries. Treason law isn't used all that often because treason isn't as common as it is today, with most of the Republican party dancing along the thin edge of eternal hatred by Americans. Probably you have destroyed your party. Congrats. --

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#11)
    by cp on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 03:13:54 AM EST
    not sure i agree with your definition of "intent". first off, the constitution requires, for an individual to be found guilty of treason, one of two items: 1. the testimony of two witnesses to the acts. or, 2. a confession in open court. let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that mr. novak is not going to confess. that leaves the two witnesses requirement. now, i know what you're thinking, "gee, there must be a million witnesses, everyone who read his column." i would argue not. you merely witnessed the overt act, you couldn't possibly tell what was in his mind when he made the decision put her name in that column. that is intent. did he intend to harm the country? beats me. i have no clue what his thought process was, and neither do you. nor, does anyone else who read that column. what you think he intended has no bearing on the issue, since you weren't there when he made the decision. to prove intent is a lot harder than you might think, especially when dealing with something as esoteric as treason. that, i suspect, is why there are so few treason cases, espionage is a lot easier to prove. as a historical footnote, i believe arron burr was the only person ever charged with treason for attempting to "levy war" against the united states, and he was acquitted.

    Re: Valerie Plame Investigation Review (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:15:55 AM EST
    Back to my point about treason. The elements of the crime may be more difficult to prove than other crimes that can be charged. If you are a prosecutor and get to choose the crime and elements you have to prove, why choose treason if it is more difficult. And I agree with cp that Novak's intent would be difficult to prove. He's just a stooge in this scenario (no offense to stooges). The person who leaked the information to him appears to have had intent to do harm to Plame. Will be much easier to prosecute that person. I am sure they will be caught because our fearless leader has put them on the same list with Osama. They will be brought to justice. Anybody care to place any bets on this one. I am betting that the administration official who leaked the info never does jail time for a crime that we are discussing in the realm of treason. We may or may not every know who the leak was. That's my take on it. It's a red state - blue state thing. We can't get the repubs as interested in treason as they were interested in Monika and Bill's trysts. They are the values crowd I am told.

    Valerie Plame Investigation Review | 12 comments (12 topical)