Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (11323)	11/25/2007 7:43:55 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Re: "Irrelevant or Fitz would have charged...." President Bush's comments had NOTHING to do with legally actionable information. Rather he referred to his personal feelings (and mine...) with regard to the heinous act of putting our nation's intelligence operatives lives (and the lives of their contacts, and all the work that has been done in the name of America) at risk: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." George Herbert Walker Bush, CIA dedication ceremony, April 26, 1999. 'Irrelevant' is a conclusion, one that in this mostly-free world you are certainly free to make for yourself, but it ignores the immorality of the situation. Your business though, as I've said, just don't expect me to share your ability to turn a blind-eye to the harming of American interests, or the immorality of doing so....

To: jlallen who wrote (11323)	11/25/2007 8:05:14 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Re: "...or Fitz would have charged someone who was covered by the act." Asked and ALREADY answered. (See below.) This one particular law is SO VERY restrictive that NO ONE has EVER been charged under it's provisions! (Though this particular exposure of an agent and her field operatives probably came CLOSER then any other yet has toward triggering the law's provisions.... Missed it by 'that much'! :-) Since the law requires - one of several preconditions, I believe - that the exposed agent have been posted overseas without interruption for a preceding five year time span before the exposure is a 'crime' under it's terms... and Plame missed that 'uninterrupted five year period' by a couple of MONTHS, this one case probably came closer then any others since the law was first enacted. Missed it by 'that much'. <G> Message 24080054 Just because a charge was not brought under the extremely restrictive requirements of this particular act, doesn't in any way mean that the actions themselves weren't REPREHENSIBLE (they were), or that there weren't other actions (in the cover-up phase) that weren't illegal, there were... so I'm not exactly sure what you seem so all-fired happy about. Something like 'we narrowly skated on this particular felony charge because of a TECHNICALITY... although we had a conviction for OTHER FELONY ACTIONS? Don't really see where all the JOY comes in from that set of circumstances. :-)