What a shameful waste of time, engergy, and govt resources. Now the Repos will similarly retaliate against the next Demo president. I can support impeaching and prosecuting Bushies for such things as the treatment of wounded veterans, lying about real matters, torturing, and many other authentic actions. But this is just non-sense to me. However, with all the horrible things that the Bushies have done, I don't object to one of them going to prison. I just wish it were over something authentically horrible.
That was pretty much my view of the Clinton prosecution for lying about Monica Lewinski. He should never have gotten asked such a question under oath, and I cared neither about him screwing around (even in the white house) nor about him lying about such a personal matter. However, he championed the very law by which he got asked this question under oath, a horrible feminist law that has caused (presumably) many innocent people to get railroaded. Had that law not passed -- with his advocacy and signature -- the civil case against him involving an allegation of sexual assault could never have included a "pattern of conduct" aspect. That law made sexual allegations special in that unlike any other criminal or civil allegation, juries and judges can consider not only the facts specific to the particular allegation, but also "pattern of conduct." Remember that prior to this law, if I got accused of armed robbery, adjudicators of this allegation could not consider that others have also accused me of other robberies.
This law makes false claims of rape easier to pursue, and thus easier to use as unfair weapons of revenge and extortion. Only for that reason did I not care that Clinton was getting railroaded; because he created the mechanism of his own railroading. However, this led to no public discussion or reconsideration of that unfair law. Instead it just made Clinton look sympathetic, like he was getting persecuted for an act that is -- or should be -- of no concern to anybody outside of his family, by people who just wanted to "get him."
6 comments:
The Libby case isn't a case of politics as was the Clinton impeachment.
Bush himself said that he would fire whoever leaked the information. The leak itself was illegal, though no on has been charged with the crime.
The fact that the administration outed a covert operative who was in charge of gathering intelligence on whether Iraq had WMDs or not, and that misinformation was used to drag us into a war that is failing more miserably every minute is significant.
Clinton's crime was lying about sex. That is not significant.
Big difference.
Not only should Libby go to jail, but so should Cheney, Bush and Richard Armitage.
The entire claim of an "outing" was political, as was Bush's response to fire anybody involved in such an outing. Some people do believe that the revelation of this information was illegal, but none have convinced me of this. Did the prosecutor ever issue a determination in this matter?
Nor am I convinced yet that no crime took place.
As best as I can tell, no crime got committed in the Plame revelation. Do I think that Libby lied? Yes. Do I believe that his lie constituted a crime? Yes. But I also believe that others lied here under oath, such as that Tim Russert.
As I read about the treatment of returning wounded veterans, the paltry sums paid to killed soldiers, the assignment of soldiers to torture other humans (even some who are certainly tyrannical killers and torturers themselves), and the forced extension of service commitment, I think about the unfair Libby conviction: screw 'em. Did Libby use any of his freedom and power to address these outrages?
Hue,
Whether you FEEL that the outing of a CIA operative is illegal is immaterial.
The fact remains that it is a CRIME.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/engler0204.html
Steve: All of us have opinions. You have one opinion on this matter, and I have another. That is what I mean by "feel"; unlike you and Nadir, I do not presume that my opinions all constitute irrefutable universal facts obvious to all intelligent people.
It is, in fact, *NOT* a crime to reveal the CIA employment and name of an "operative," except in very specific set of circumstances defined by one specific law.
Steve: I read the zmagsite.zmag.org article that you posted. It does not prove that a crime occurred. It merely reports as "fact" some opinions that real facts either fail to support, or outright falsify.
The article even contradicts itself, in one place asserting (as "fact"!) that the Bushies leaked in order to exact revenge on Wilson and Plame, and in another place merely to discredit Wilson. The only support presented here for the revenge explanation is various quoted opinions. Meanwhile, actual facts support only the view that Cheney et al. sought to use Plame's role to underplay Wilson's credibility.
The author mentions the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, but fails to describe its terms. That law covers CIA employees with covert status working overseas, among other stipulations. It also requires that the identifier know of this status of the identified agent. I have read analyses that addressed the terms of the law along with the attending facts, and which conclude that no violation of the law occurred, certainly not in a way provable in court (which would require proving that the accused knew of Plame's status, if indeed she qualified for the law's stipulated status). I am most eager to consider an article that examines these factors and reaches the opposite view.
This article correctly exposes Bush apologists for using selective facts to erect a false claim when pointing to Wilson's financial support for Gore's campaign, without also recognizing that Wilson contributed to Bush II's campaign and supported Bush I. However, this author does the same thing when he presents Wilson's report from Niger as if it constituted the only relevant factor pertaining to the allegation of Hussein's nuclear-Niger connection, and as if it indeed falsified that allegation. The author neglects to mention that the allegation originated from a formal written report from UK intelligence, and that UK officials even in light of Wilson's commentaries stand behind their original conclusion.
Also, the author fails to describe Wilson's "report" as an "oral report".
I could go on, but I feel that this article is wasting my time. I can understand it convincing only people who already made up their minds before important facts emerged; I cannot understand it convincing open-minded, intelligent people (such as me) that anybody here committed a crime.
Post a Comment