Then, Spencer, I can only assume that you don’t like the rule of law, prefering the rule of the CIA.

Well, in that case he & Dick Cheney are of one mind.

In this case though, and I'm enough of a cynic to be surprised by it, the CIA seems to be supporting the democratic interest more than, say, the Vice President.

You guys are like a bunch of barracks lawyers.

You have no idea where Plame served or what she did.

Yes, she was working at Langley at the time.
But that is very common for people on that side of the house. Many spooks move back and forth between Langley and abroad both on a long term and short term basis. I had a friend who was a forger. He was stationed in Langley. But several times a year he traveled throughout South America to get the new official entry and exit stamps in his passports. So just because she was at Langley at one point in time does not mean anything.

Moreover, she was under unofficial cover, not official cover. That is very rare, as the bulk of those under cover have official cover. Being under unofficial cover is much more dangerous then official cover. Under official cover the worse the host government can do is PNG you. But under unofficial cover you can be thrown in jail and there is not much the US government can do about it.

You or giving your own weird interpretations of the law that essentially no one else supports or agrees with. I think I will stick with the Attorney Generals interpretation of the law rather than yours. Moreover, your entire case consist of pilling one asumption on top of another. But if a single one of your assumptions -- and that is all they are because you do not have any facts -- turn out to be false your whole house of cards collapses.

odograph -- you claim this is wrong. What facts not speculations do you have to support your claim.

On the other hand, if Libbly allegations are broadly true, then the Whitehouse did not serve the public interest, regardless of their motives.

Now there are people calling for an investigation of Wilson himself (via Ace), which I'm inclined to think is appropriate. [*edit*: I mean something like a routine investigation, not a special prosecutor]

My argument is that Fitzgerald blew the investigation and that all evidence strongly suggests that the outing of Valerie Plame was not a crime.

But it was not a good thing either. I'm not sure if I'd say it was immoral, but I believe very strongly that it was hardball politics that went too far. I have several friends who work in such positions, and while exposing their status would not be criminal, I think it would simply be wrong. Novak pretty much says the same thing in lamenting using Plame's name.

And I think a lot of the hostility to my points has been based on my not clarifying this legal/moral distinction. I think that I have proven the legal case here, but not the moral one. And while I'm still convinced that the power politics started with Wilson's lies, and a hardball response was to be expected, you won't hear me say that it was a good thing that it happened.

but the link in my last post to the IIPA authors clearly states that “serving” does not include simply having travelled overseas.

Okay, but their opinion is interesting mainly to them. The statute says what it says, and there is no reason to believe that the legislators who enacted it shared the authors' (conveniently narrow) definition. Courts enforce statutes as written, not as "intended." The intent of a statute is inferred from its words.

Leaving aside the obvious political motives of Toensing etc.

I'm sorry if that seems an academic way of looking at things, but it happens to be shared by Justice Scalia, who regularly refuses to join any portion of an opinion that attempts to decipher "legislative history."

Travelling overseas as part of a cover job is different than being stationed overseas as a covert agent (requirements in the IIPA).

That is, you are saying that even if you accept it, you'd be willing to blow such a person's cover for party politics.

If you want to continue your stupid line of reasoning (your words, not mine), you might want to consult any attorney (or even a paralegal or first year law student), who has done any research in what "questions of fact versus questions of law" are. While the CIA can assert that someone is a "covert agent", the ultimate judge is a jury of someone's peers.

By the way, ask yourself the same question, what factual evidence, besides the statement of the CIA, do you have as evidence that Plame was a "covert agent" within the meaning of 50 USC 426? That would have to be proven in order for there to be a violation.

So far as Mr. Johnson's assertion that Plame traveled outside the U.S., it may (or may not) be true. I have no knowledge of it, and one person's assertion, without independent evidence, is worth the same as any one else's opinion.

Spencer: I haven't disputed that her employment status was classified and that she had previously served under cover. What I dispute is that the prior does not rise to the level required by the Espionage Act to make her outing a crime, and her previous undercover assignment didn't fall under the requirements of the IIPA. Before accusing me of ignorance, try reading what I've written and applying a bit of legal reasoning to the situation.

And here's a shocker: yes, I've consulted people in the intel community about this. They're like flies in this town.

If you are going to continue with this stupid line of reasoning I would suggest you find an actual CIA employee and find out a few facts rather then making up your own.

I was a CIA officer -- both overt and under cover -- in the 1960s-70s. I know what I am talking about and your arguments are just plain ignorant.

The CIA said she was under cover. The Justice Department agreed, the Judge in the grand jury agreed. What factual evidence do you have that they are wrong besides making up your own definitions of terms. Even Novak does not make the claim that she was not under cover.