White House Outted CIA Agent

[Berzerker]

Dino -

He's "hiding" behind the 1st amendment.

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with my comment?
And beside you, who said he was "hiding"? This is a case where his principles are in conflict. Now, since you raise the 1st Amendment issue, why does the 1st Amendment mean Bob Novak doesn't have to answer questions about a crime? Only if he is the accused... (and that would be the 5th). Freedom of the press doesn't create a special protection for reporters the rest of us don't have. So if you have to answer questions about a crime and refuse, you can be punished and so can he.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Out of curiosity on what basis would a special prosecutor be named now that the independent council law has expired?

Special prosecutors were named before the independent council law... they were just under the authority of the Justice Department. After Nixon kept trying to control the special prosecutor, Congress created the independent council law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What does the 1st Amendment have to do with my comment?

You asked how he was dealing with the situation. I decided to give an answer.

why does the 1st Amendment mean Bob Novak doesn't have to answer questions about a crime?

Protection of confidential sources.

PS Thanks for the info, Imran.

[Berzerker]

Oops.

And the 1st Amendment provides protection for reporters to keep the identity of a criminal secret but not the rest of us?
Where is that in the 1st?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where is that in the 1st?

Beats me but the investigation would be fairly short if the Federal Government had the ability to compel Novak to divulge who his sources were.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Arnelos
It should be noted that while her status was certainly revealed, there is absoultely no compelling evidence whatsoever that the Bush Administration was either purposely behind it or that there was any malicious intent by whoever was responsible (incompetence is as often the reason for stupidity like this as malice or corruption).

Jumping to the conclusion that the Bush Admin. must be behind it is extremely specious.

The Washington Post is now claiming they have evidence from sources that the leak came from the White House.

On Saturday, a senior administration official told The Washington Post that before Novak's column appeared, two top White House officials called at least six journalists and disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife. The senior administration official said the leak was "meant purely and simply for revenge." Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to examine the nuclear claims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29560-2003Oct1_2.html

[Alexander's Horse]

same info in Australia

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not even going by what politicians say. Just by thier very public failiures ranging back to at least the nuke tests by India.

For the record, the State Department was responsible for that because when the intel community was warning the Clinton Admin. about the nuke tests, the State Department decided in negotiations with the Indians and Pakistanis to let them know that the U.S. knew about their testing and showed them the proof.

The only thing this served to do was to teach the Indians and Pakistanis how to better hide their nuclear testing programs by giving them an idea of how the U.S. was able to spy on them.

The consequence was that the intel community didn't catch the fact that a test was being planned until it was too late to avert it diplomatically.

I might add that a number of other intel "failures" end up being caused by stupidity like this. Giving away sources and methods can and does prove detrimental. That's why the CIA was as incredibly uneasy as they were about giving away any of the real goods for Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. on Iraq's biochem and nuclear weapons programs. Any source or method given away will surely be useless once it has been.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I actually meant "was" to mean just before this story got big - i.e. in the last couple of days. If she was an operative a while back, then it just makes the people hyping this story even bigger idiots because they are the ones who have ensured that she will not be able to serve in this capacity at any point in the future.

The evidence strongly suggests that members of the White House adminstration took advantage of and publicized the leak after it occured. This probably when the damage not done by the initial story occured

The White House, meanwhile, was striving to contain the scandal by defining the allegations narrowly. Its spokesman, Scott McClellan, accused critics of "moving the goalposts". He said the allegations should focus only on whether classified information was leaked - and not on whether White House officials spoke to reporters about it later to capitalise on the leak.

Mr McClellan appeared to be referring to news reports and comments by Mr Wilson, suggesting that White House officials phoned reporters to encourage more stories after the initial leak was published.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/03/1064988410525.html