Appalling new prison photos!!! - DPChallenge Forums

10/27/2005 06:08:34 PM · #526

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
I'm saying that official policy cannot prevent people from engaging in torture.

So you are saying that US military and intelligence service personnel would disobey a direct order from their commander-in-chief.

How comforting to know they're so well-disciplined ...

Oh, yeah. I know that I did when I was in the service. And, no, I didn't torture anyone. I just disobeyed a direct order. Several of them, in fact. But guess what? In every case, I prevailed. It seems that the orders were unlawful, and I was within my rights to disobey them.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

On the other hand, the absence of an order to not engage in torture could rightfully be determined to be permission if not a direction.

While some might see it that way, I can't agree that it could "rightfully" be determined. But if you believe that it could, then you would then be in favor of dropping charges agains Tom Delay, since the law he allegedly violated hadn't even been written when he allegedly violated it. Note: I'm not saying that he is not-guilty of immoral behaviour ( I'm inclined to believe that he is ), just perhaps that he is not-guilty of breaking the law. We shall see.

Message edited by author 2005-10-27 18:10:55.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2005 06:16:51 PM · #527

You're right, I should have said "rightfully interpreted by some ..." although not by myself.

Let's not involve Mr. DeLay in any discussion of torture, unless you have evidence he's involved ...

10/27/2005 06:51:09 PM · #528

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You're right, I should have said "rightfully interpreted by some ..." although not by myself.

My emphasis was on the words "rightfully", I agree that it could be interpreded by some, but I disagree that it could be "rightfully" be determined by anyone.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Let's not involve Mr. DeLay in any discussion of torture, unless you have evidence he's involved ...

Hmmm. Nope, I don't. Consider him uninvolved.

P.S. I'm having a tough time finding anything even approaching any articles that tie "country of origin" to KBR and it's employment of TCN's in Iraq. Nothing popped when I searched the Chicago Sun-Times, either.
I've places to go, things to do, people to see right now, but will return later. If you find anything, let me know. If not, and you just want my comments relative to KBR and its employment practices related to TCNs' in Iraq, or on human trafficking, or whatever, you know how to find me.

P.S. Pauline, I know that I still owe you a reply as well. I'll try to not forget.

Message edited by author 2005-10-27 18:51:49.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2005 06:58:44 PM · #529

Originally posted by RonB:

P.S. I'm having a tough time finding anything even approaching any articles that tie "country of origin" to KBR and it's employment of TCN's in Iraq. Nothing popped when I searched the Chicago Sun-Times, either.

SORRY! It was the Chicago Tribune. I forgot there were still some legitimate two-paper markets.

Here's a link to the NPR Radio story summary -- I think there's a subsequent link to audio of the interview.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/27/2005 11:33:25 PM · #530

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
P.S. I'm having a tough time finding anything even approaching any articles that tie "country of origin" to KBR and it's employment of TCN's in Iraq. Nothing popped when I searched the Chicago Sun-Times, either.

SORRY! It was the Chicago Tribune. I forgot there were still some legitimate two-paper markets.

Here's a link to the NPR Radio story summary -- I think there's a subsequent link to audio of the interview.

Thanks, Paul. I finally did find a link that summarizes the problem, rather than spend 10-12 narrating worker histories. This link is also written by Cam Simpson and Aamer Madhani of The Chicago Tribune.
My opinion as it relates to the issue is that everyone ( U.S. Government, Halliburton, KBR, and its subcontractors ) knows what is going on, but everyone is "clean" because none of it gets "documented". In other words, the sub-contractors use "agents" that falsify documentation about the workers, but the sub-contractors don't "know" about that ( officially ) because they "trust" the agents and don't check the documentation. Since the sub-contractors don't ( officially ) know that the workers are prohibited from working in Iraq ( Nepal prohibits that ) because of the false ( unchecked ) documents, they put the workers to work - often in Iraq. The workers don't dare complain, because the sub-contractors hold their passports.
Would I call this human trafficking? That's a tough one. Initially the workers volunteer to go to Jordan or Saudi Arabia, then they are shifted to Iraq. They can "quit" at any time if they want to, but doing so would still leave them owing thousands of dollars in fees and transportation costs to repay, and they would have no way to get back home. So, they acquiesce and go to Iraq. In some sense, that smacks of trafficking. However, the workers ARE paid wages that exceed those they would earn back home, and are not "forced" to work long hours - they work long hours because it means more money to be sent home. So, in another sense, it isn't.
A larger problem, though, is that they are a) deceived about the work, b) charged exhorbitant fees for the processing and transportation to the middle-east, c) their situation, once there, is exploited to push them into Iraq, and d) once there, they are exposed to greater danger than the US workers they support.
A nasty business, overall. And one that OUR government should take steps to correct. I recognize that US policy states that this type of exploitation should not occur, and that it "seems" akin to the "torture" memos, but I don't think of it as the same. There seems to be some "teeth" in the "torture" memo - people have been court-martialled as a result. There seems in this case to be more of a "blind eye" than "teeth".

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

10/28/2005 06:23:12 AM · #531

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
So you are saying that all interrogation is torture? So everyone who is questioned following an incident is being tortured?

Excuse me, but aren't you the same person who just accused ME of trying to put words into YOUR mouth? If so, what do you call the above?

No, I am not saying that all interrogation is torture. I'm saying that according to UN CAT Articles 1 and 16 all interrogation *could* be classified as torture, since all interrogation will make the one being interrogated feel threatened, intimidated, uncomfortable, degraded, etc - all of which *can* be classified as torture under UN CAT 1/16.
Obviously, I do not agree with that possible assesment.

Ok understand your point of view here now!

Originally posted by Riponlady:

In my opinion, questioning can take place in such a manner that is not torture as is demonstrated every day by the police. What has been done to the captives held by US officials is not straightforward questioning.

Having been subjected to interrogation by the police myself, I can tell you that the actions "demonstrated" by the police in conducting my interrogation at least closely followed those outlined in the "techniques" memo I posted a link to. I did not consider it "torture" myself, but it seems that you think that the techniques outlined in the memo are "torture". But then you say that police interrogation techniques are NOT torture, leaving me to question just where you draw the line.

questioning a person in any situation is not torture else everytime I spoke to a pupil about an incident would have been torture and I don't think anyone woould hold that to be true. Questioning someone in such a way that they seriously fear for their well being or suffer physical harm is torture IMO.

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Whether or not the government has agreed that torture should take place, it should be doing everything it can to ensure it doesn't happen and that is what the government doesn't seem to be doing or intend to do.

So the trials and convictions that have already taken place don't persuade you that the government is doing anything? I thought they were fairly convincing, myself.

Not convinced myself - too many complaints of torture from others (eg British muslims returned home) to persuade me that torture of some kind is being systematically used with the knowledge of the higher authorities. How high up this goes I realise is the point of your comments but I am still fairly convinced that the govt knows and condones what is going on. If they do not then they should get the "terrorists" on trial and remove the problem which would improve the view of the US around the world.

Originally posted by Riponlady:

You inferred from my sentence that questioning is wrong because we cannot agree on what torture is. I thought you were saying that the US government had made it clear what they considered torture and had informed us of it through the document you quoted. I beleive that questioning can take place in a humane way that would allow the person being questioned to not suffer from degrading or mentally abusive treatment.

I don't think that any interrogation whose goal is to obtain information that someone does NOT want to reveal will absolutely require that they suffer some degradation or mental anguish. I do agree that it doesn't have to be "abusive". But again, I harken back to the starting point - UN CAT Article 1/16 which effectively removes the "abusive" qualifier from the level required to be considered "torture".

[quote=Riponlady]Sorry don't understand your analogy about red lights.

I'm saying that official policy cannot prevent people from engaging in torture. Not even enforcement of those policies can prevent it. The qualifications of UN CAT 1/16 could only be met by limiting interrogations to non-threating emails.

Agreed that if people are that way inclined then it will happen. However any govt accused should be whiter than white in their dealings to prove their good intentions - back to my point to get these people on trial.

Originally posted by Riponlady:

You have not answered my point as to the process of law and trials.
P

I believe in the law, and in trials, and agree that the majority of those convicted are judged fairly. I DO NOT, however agree with mandatory sentencing, 3-strikes laws, zero-tolerance policies, etc. etc., and I would strongly support the establishment of a local, civilian review board for all non-jury sentencing. The disparity in sentencing by individual judges ( not so much by juries, or even by judicial panels ) is outrageous. A year's probation for someone who pleads guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, and 15 years to someone who sold one rock of crack cocaine? I call that a pretty outrageous disparity.

I think this is where the cultural and judicial differences between our two countries makes it hard to understand each other's felings. All major crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery are held before a jury in UK. Yes some sentencing is questioned over here but there are set tarrifs that are enforced and the ability for the prosecution to appeal against what they consider to be a low sentence in the same way as someone can appeal against their conviction. I and I think the majority of the UK public are fairly strongly supportive of our system. We do not have the level of plea bargaining that appears to go on in US and appeals are much faster (I think). The biggest problem IMO over here is the non efforts/results of police action in minor crime areas.

Hope this is of value. We probably will nver agree about Bush and other issues like Iraq etc but it is interesting and fun debating!!!!!
Pauline

Message edited by author 2005-10-28 06:26:34.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/28/2005 04:25:22 PM · #532

Good luck, Scooter, you'll need it. ;)
I hear the CIA is holding Abu Ghraib cellblock 1A warm for you.
But look at the bright side...at least you're getting due process.

Word of advice: Hire former FEMA director, Michael Brown, as your attorney. I hear he's available.

Message edited by author 2005-10-28 16:32:55.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/28/2005 05:48:07 PM · #533

According to Aricle 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

According to this article (attributed to either the Chicago Daily Herald and/or the AP):

�I�m not going to sell myself out just to save myself,� Fawell said after his sentencing in late June 2003. �I�m not sitting on any bomb of George Ryan�s. I�m not going to go in there and make up stories about him just to save myself, which unfortunately that�s the game (prosecutors) like you to play.�

That, however, was before Fitzgerald�s office charged Coutretsis, formerly of Long Grove. Coutretsis, a mother of two and Fawell�s one-time assistant at McPier, faced a prison sentence for perjury before persuading Fawell to turn on Ryan. In return, she could get six months or probation. Fawell could get six months shaved off his sentence.

In brief: Scott Fawell was the chief of staff for Illinois governor George Ryan, and under investigation by one Patrick Fitzgerald. Fawell was convicted a couple of years ago for his part in whatever crime was committed, but refused to testify against Ryan. That is, until Fitzgerald "intimidated and coerced a third person" - Fawell's fiancee - in order to obtain, in affect, "information" and "a confession".

SO: If you believe that we should abide by the UN Convetion Against Torture, then you must agree that Patrick Fitzgerald should be charged and convicted of torture against citizens of this country.

FWIW (because I'm sure I will be accused otherwise), IF Libby committed perjury, or any other crime, he should be convicted and punished appropriated. (Of course, what other famous couple both committed purjury without ever being charge, let alone convicted and punished?)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/28/2005 06:34:32 PM · #534

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
P.S. I'm having a tough time finding anything even approaching any articles that tie "country of origin" to KBR and it's employment of TCN's in Iraq. Nothing popped when I searched the Chicago Sun-Times, either.

SORRY! It was the Chicago Tribune. I forgot there were still some legitimate two-paper markets.

Here's a link to the NPR Radio story summary -- I think there's a subsequent link to audio of the interview.

Thanks, Paul. I finally did find a link that summarizes the problem, rather than spend 10-12 narrating worker histories. This link is also written by Cam Simpson and Aamer Madhani of The Chicago Tribune.
My opinion as it relates to the issue is that everyone ( U.S. Government, Halliburton, KBR, and its subcontractors ) knows what is going on, but everyone is "clean" because none of it gets "documented". In other words, the sub-contractors use "agents" that falsify documentation about the workers, but the sub-contractors don't "know" about that ( officially ) because they "trust" the agents and don't check the documentation. Since the sub-contractors don't ( officially ) know that the workers are prohibited from working in Iraq ( Nepal prohibits that ) because of the false ( unchecked ) documents, they put the workers to work - often in Iraq. The workers don't dare complain, because the sub-contractors hold their passports.

Part of why I put the question the way I did is that the reporter mentioned that the workers' official KBR employee ID badges listed the "Country of Origin" as Nepal. It is illegal for them to be employed in Iraq, regardless of any documentation any intermediaries may present. They (KBR) seems to have been somewhat lax in maintaining the mantle of plausible deniability.

With regard to the workers originally "volunteering" it is clear that they were signing up under completely fraudulent pretenses -- they were lied-to. Why should they bear any responsibility for extricating themselves from their involuntary servitude and being returned to their families ASAP?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

10/28/2005 08:32:04 PM · #535

Originally posted by GeneralE:

On the contrary, Paul, according to the article
"The U.S. military and KBR do not screen workers to determine whether they come from Nepal and other nations that prohibit their citizens from working in Iraq. But [/b]the military[/b] could easily do so, because it issues the badges listing each worker's nationality, name, job and the subcontractor employing him."
You see, they may be "official KBR badges" but they are issued by the Military, not by KBR or any of its sub-contractors. Not that it wouldn't be easy for KBR to check. I'm just providing some clarification to the charges.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

With regard to the workers originally "volunteering" it is clear that they were signing up under completely fraudulent pretenses -- they were lied-to. Why should they bear any responsibility for extricating themselves from their involuntary servitude and being returned to their families ASAP?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Many, though certainly not all, may originally have been destined for other middle east countries, then diverted to Iraq because positions that were open at the time of their recruitment were filled when they finally got to the middle east.
I'm not saying that many were not deliberately misled. I'm just saying that in every undertaking of this sort, where "bounties" are paid on a per person basis, or where there are "quotas", SOME recruiters will be honest and OTHERS will not. If you were to talk to 1000 men and women in the US ( volunteer ) military you will likely find that around half will tell you that their recruiter lied to them. I know mine did.

hokie

Nikon D2X

10/28/2005 10:39:45 PM · #536

I think that a thread like this existing at all indicates just how far many people will go today to rationalize what would normally be considered barbaric and uncivilized regardless of technical specification.

I am disappointied as a traditional conservative by the current direction of many "conservatives" and find it interesting that the current administration and their supporters have done more to drive people like me away than anything modern "liberals" have done in 25 years.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

10/28/2005 10:55:42 PM · #537

Originally posted by hokie:

An appropriate observation from someone whose DPC profile says:

"I also take some photos once in a while for submission to DP Challenge to torture myself".

Now that we have an example of what you consider to be "torture", we have a better understanding of the your position, and a clearer understanding of why "technical specifications" are needed.

Just kidding. But you have to admit, it IS a rather bizarre coincidence - or is it?

Message edited by author 2005-10-28 22:57:10.

hokie

Nikon D2X

10/28/2005 11:04:06 PM · #538

Well RonB, I guess it would be humourous, if I just wasn't so saddened by the whole thing...perhaps I will edit my profile, one that was created BTW before this bit of US embarrassment.

10/28/2005 11:39:36 PM · #539

Originally posted by hokie:

Well RonB, I guess it would be humourous, if I just wasn't so saddened by the whole thing...perhaps I will edit my profile, one that was created BTW before this bit of US embarrassment.

I'm saddened by the whole thing, too. As many have said, we all know what real "torture" is. The sad truth, though, is that if we were to codify UN CAT articles 1 and 16, there are those who have such a severe and unrelenting hatred for George Bush and the high ranking people in his adminstration that they WOULD file charges of "torture" against them and cite that law as the basis of their charges. And, also sadly, the joke that is our judiciary would interpret guilt based on the "letter of the law".
You think that I'm kidding, but I'm not.
Example: A homeless man killed another homeless man. The murder weapon ( a knife ) with the accused's fingerprints on it, was found under a piece of cardboard, under a bridge, where the accused was known to sleep most nights. A judge threw the case out of court, because the knife was found during an "illegal search". The search was "illegal" because the police didn't have a search warrant. The judge ruled that a search warrant was required because the area under the bridge was the man's "domicile", according to the law. Hence, there was an illegal search and seizure, and the knife was not admissible as evidence.
Do you really NOT think that someone would try to use Article 16 at its most ridiculous leniency against Bush & Co. if it were codified? I absolutely do.
As much as I despise torture, I fear lawyers more.

Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT and undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative.
You would THINK, that before investigating who said what to who when, the investigators would make an effor to determine whether a law had been broken. But no. As former Chief Judge Wachler said, "Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to a indict ham sandwich." And, since the agenda was to bring down the Bush administration, the investigation proceeded ( apparently to obtain an indictment by browbeating those testifying until they could be caught slipping up ). So, even though the original charge for which the grand jury was formed was untrue, they eventually got what the prosecutor wanted, all in accordance with the law - the law against false statements, that is.
That's what makes me sad. That there are those who would use the "letter of the law" against political enemies, when the "intent of the law" is apparent to all but judges.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/28/2005 11:43:32 PM · #540

Originally posted by RonB:

Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT and undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative.

"Everyone knows?"

Isn't that the kind of unsupported "evidence" you rail against with regularity? It's OK for you, but not for anyone else?

By that standard, "everybody knows" by now that Mr. Bush lied about just about every reason we went to war, even the ones broght in later when the first ones were shown to be a sham ...

Message edited by author 2005-10-28 23:44:27.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/29/2005 01:27:33 AM · #541

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by hokie:
Well RonB, I guess it would be humourous, if I just wasn't so saddened by the whole thing...perhaps I will edit my profile, one that was created BTW before this bit of US embarrassment.

I'm saddened by the whole thing, too. As many have said, we all know what real "torture" is. The sad truth, though, is that if we were to codify UN CAT articles 1 and 16, there are those who have such a severe and unrelenting hatred for George Bush and the high ranking people in his adminstration that they WOULD file charges of "torture" against them and cite that law as the basis of their charges. And, also sadly, the joke that is our judiciary would interpret guilt based on the "letter of the law".
You think that I'm kidding, but I'm not.
Example: A homeless man killed another homeless man. The murder weapon ( a knife ) with the accused's fingerprints on it, was found under a piece of cardboard, under a bridge, where the accused was known to sleep most nights. A judge threw the case out of court, because the knife was found during an "illegal search". The search was "illegal" because the police didn't have a search warrant. The judge ruled that a search warrant was required because the area under the bridge was the man's "domicile", according to the law. Hence, there was an illegal search and seizure, and the knife was not admissible as evidence.
Do you really NOT think that someone would try to use Article 16 at its most ridiculous leniency against Bush & Co. if it were codified? I absolutely do.
As much as I despise torture, I fear lawyers more.

Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT and undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative.
You would THINK, that before investigating who said what to who when, the investigators would make an effor to determine whether a law had been broken. But no. As former Chief Judge Wachler said, "Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to a indict ham sandwich." And, since the agenda was to bring down the Bush administration, the investigation proceeded ( apparently to obtain an indictment by browbeating those testifying until they could be caught slipping up ). So, even though the original charge for which the grand jury was formed was untrue, they eventually got what the prosecutor wanted, all in accordance with the law - the law against false statements, that is.
That's what makes me sad. That there are those who would use the "letter of the law" against political enemies, when the "intent of the law" is apparent to all but judges.

Did you bother to listen to what Fitzgerald had to say, or did you just go straight to Fox News for your talking points?

For starters, Fitzgerald said he couldn't determine whether a law had been broken because Libby lied repeatedly, to FBI agents and under oath to the grand jury. He also said that, in fact, Plame WAS an undercover CIA agent. And the fact that Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by his wife has absolutely nothing to do with her cover getting blown.

By the way, why did Libby feel it necessary to lie at all if he hadn't committed a crime?

MadMordegon

10/29/2005 02:43:27 AM · #542

As this turned towards the CIA Leak investigation because of ridiculously false comments; I made this thread The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

Message edited by author 2005-10-29 02:43:59.

10/29/2005 11:49:43 AM · #543

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT and undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative.

"Everyone knows?"

Isn't that the kind of unsupported "evidence" you rail against with regularity? It's OK for you, but not for anyone else?

By that standard, "everybody knows" by now that Mr. Bush lied about just about every reason we went to war, even the ones broght in later when the first ones were shown to be a sham ...

When I say "everyone knows", I, of course, mean that everyone who cares to debate the issue "ought to" know because the evidence is clear. Naturally, there are those who do not care, but if they do not, then they should refrain from debating the issue.

When I say that "everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife" I offer as evidence this quotation from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report from July, 2004, ref: HERE(pdf ) ( pg 39 )

Originally posted by Senate Report:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable {DELETED TEXT} requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf. {DELETED TEXT}. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region {DELETED TEXT}.

(emphasis mine)

When I say that "everyone knows that she was NOT an undercover operative of the CIA", I offer as evidence:

A portion of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 itself, ref: HERE which states repeatedly that the law only applies to the identification of covert agents. The term "covert" is defined in the U.S. Code ( ref: HERE
which says:

(4) The term "covert agent" means�
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency�
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

Since Valerie Plame was NOT serving outside the United States, and HAD NOT served outside the United States within the last five years, it is clear ( to those who care ) that she was NOT a "covert" agent.

So, you see, it is NOT by the same standard that I permit folks to get away with stating, without evidence, that "everyone knows" this or that.
My standards require that one be able to provide evidence to support their contentions.

Message edited by author 2005-10-29 11:50:49.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/29/2005 12:25:34 PM · #544

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT and undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative.

"Everyone knows?"

Isn't that the kind of unsupported "evidence" you rail against with regularity? It's OK for you, but not for anyone else?

By that standard, "everybody knows" by now that Mr. Bush lied about just about every reason we went to war, even the ones broght in later when the first ones were shown to be a sham ...

When I say "everyone knows", I, of course, mean that everyone who cares to debate the issue "ought to" know because the evidence is clear. Naturally, there are those who do not care, but if they do not, then they should refrain from debating the issue.

When I say that "everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife" I offer as evidence this quotation from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report from July, 2004, ref: HERE(pdf ) ( pg 39 )
Originally posted by Senate Report:
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable {DELETED TEXT} requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf. {DELETED TEXT}. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region {DELETED TEXT}.
(emphasis mine)

When I say that "everyone knows that she was NOT an undercover operative of the CIA", I offer as evidence:

A portion of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 itself, ref: HERE which states repeatedly that the law only applies to the identification of covert agents. The term "covert" is defined in the U.S. Code ( ref: HERE
which says:

(4) The term "covert agent" means�
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency�
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

Since Valerie Plame was NOT serving outside the United States, and HAD NOT served outside the United States within the last five years, it is clear ( to those who care ) that she was NOT a "covert" agent.

So, you see, it is NOT by the same standard that I permit folks to get away with stating, without evidence, that "everyone knows" this or that.
My standards require that one be able to provide evidence to support their contentions.

----------------------------------------------------------

Well, Patrick Fitzgerald "cares" AND he knows the law, and he obviously disagrees with your assessment of the classified and/or covert status of Valerie Plame:

Office of Special Counsel - White House Official I. Lewis Libby Indicted on Obstruction of Justice, False Statement and Perjury Charges Relating to Leak of Classified Information Revealing CIA Officer's Identity - Press Release

"According to the indictment, on September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson�s CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. In January 2004, the grand jury investigation began examining possible violations of criminal laws prohibiting disclosing the identity of covert intelligence personnel (The Intelligence Identities Protection Act), improperly disclosing national defense information, making false statements to government agents, and perjury. A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson�s CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson�s employment by the CIA was classified information.

"The indictment alleges that Libby had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community and other government officials regarding sensitive national security matters. With his responsibilities for national security matters, Libby held security clearances giving him access to classified information. Libby was obligated by federal criminal statute, regulations, executive orders, and a written non-disclosure agreement not to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons, and to properly safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.

"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson�s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual�s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual�s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states."

Message edited by author 2005-10-29 12:28:03.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/29/2005 12:31:35 PM · #545

Note that the CIA and the statutes make a distinction between "undercover" and covert" agents. Ms. Plame was definitely "undercover" although she may not meet the definition of "covert" under the law around which the investigation centered.

Still, this sounds like one of those "legal technicalities" that so-called conservatives are always complaining against, like when criminals get off because the police don't bother geting a search warrant when they should have.

For a government employee to disclose anything at all about the family of someone merely because of their opposing political views seems to me to be "wrong" whether or not it violates the letter of some particular law. You of all people should be concerned with the moral basis of the actions more than the statutory niceties.

And if there was nothing wrong about it, why didn't Mr. Libby tell the truth in the first place?

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

10/29/2005 01:14:22 PM · #546

Originally posted by GeneralE:

----------------------------------------------------------

RonB's defense of the administration on this matter (and others) reminds me of the infamous statement by Clinton: It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is. Playing word games, parsing the meaning of words is how RonB and Bush&Co. dissemble on every issue. They do Clinton proud.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/29/2005 01:45:21 PM · #547

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

RonB's defense of the administration on this matter (and others) reminds me of the infamous statement by Clinton: It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is. Playing word games, parsing the meaning of words is how RonB and Bush&Co. dissemble on every issue. They do Clinton proud.

Whenever I see evasiveness of this sort, I'm reminded there's a reason we take a very specifically worded oath when we are sworn in to give testimony; we don't just swear to "tell the truth", we swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Perhaps to the average citizen this is a double redundancy, but to me it's 3 different things. In any given situation I might tell the truth but bury it within a fabric of related lies. Or I mnight tell only those portions of the truth that seem "safe" to me. Thus, when I testify I am sworn to tell ONLY the truth and ALL of the truth.

R.

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1