| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38703 Activity:high |
7/19 Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com)
http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda)
\_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins
tonight at 9pm EDT!
\_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals
a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was
sensitive and confidential.
\_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should
be fired? Look! Over there! A supreme court nomination!
\_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone
(was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they
should be fired"?
\_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it.
\_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew
they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could
say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another
reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's
wife the CIA agent" to him.
\_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo?
\_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate
on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is
investigating this.
\_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My
reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you
can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo.
\_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the
lawyer asks him what it would take for him to
believe R. Kelly is guilty.
\_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove
wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is
legally guilty. I am a fan of fairness and
logic, and I try to point out claims that are
unsupported by fact. -pp
\_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove,
would you accept that?
\_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180? What is
he hiding?
\_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?!
\_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
\_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by
"a plausible theory".
I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and
Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive".
It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not
likely to come out clearly enough to be able to
collect on any bets.
\_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that
sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter
but really isn't.
\_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and
probably shouldn't be disclosed to
unauthorized individuals".
\_ If you mean "classified", which has a
clear legal definition, use that. It
sounds like you're trying to carve out
a category of information that occupies
the space between legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Actually, I'm just using the words
in the article. I'd be hesitant
to bet on "classified" though.
To a layperson, "sensitive and
probably shouldn't be disclosed
to unauthorized individuals" has a
very clear meaning -- and I could
bet on that.
\_ Bush I probably thought the fact
that he didn't like brocoli was
"sensitive" and shouldn't be
disclosed to the public. And I
will repeat my claim that you are
trying to carve out a space between
what is legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Yes I am carving out a space
between what is legal and
illegal, but what is my
purpose in doing that?
It is what I would be willing
to "bet" on, rather than
legal criteria for putting
him in jail.
\_ I think it's because you
suspect Rove won't be found
legally guilty but you're
not willing to let him off
the hook, so you're trying
to invent a standard whereby
he is guilty even when he
is not.
\_ /Everyone/ suspects that
Rove won't be found
legally guilty.
Listen, all I wrote was
that I would put money on
the fact that Rove and
Libby knew Plame's
identity was sensitive and
probably shouldn't be
disclosed to unauthorized
individuals. I also
acknowledge that Rove
probably won't be
convicted. I also
acknowledge that the terms
I would bet on probably
don't meet the legal
requirements for
conviction.
So what's the big whoop?
\_ Nothing at all. But I
am encouraged to see
you admit that Rove's
action "probably don't
meet the legal
requirements for
conviction."
\_ "Admit" is not the
right word.
I always had the
distinction between
what I wrote and
legal requirements
in mind, and I
don't see how
I implied I wasn't
aware of the
distinction.
For legal purposes, "classified" has
a very clear meaning as you pointed
out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and
Libby knowing it was "classified".
I'm definitely not betting on whether
Rove will be convicted or not, but
the smart money of course would be
on no conviction.
\_ Same question: If Fitzgerald
ultimately exonerates Rove, would
you accept that?
\_ If by exonerate you mean "not
convicted of breaking the law",
I'm not sure I would be happy.
If by exonerate you mean
convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, then I would
accept that.
But what I said above is all
very obvious, I think.
\_ Does "not sure I would be
happy" mean that you do not
accept Rove was innocent,
despite Fitzgerald to the
contrary?
\_ Look, O.J. was found "not
guilty" / "innocent" of
killing his wife.
Do you accept that?
\_ BTW, I take it that
you will not accept
Fitzgerald's conclusion
if it is counter to
your position. Who has
the closed mind here?
\_ How do you translate
"I may not be
happy" to I "will
not accept F.'s
conclusion if it
is counter to [my]
position"?
\_ I asked the
question, and I
took your silence
as acquiescence.
Mea culpa. Will
you accept Rove's
exoneration?
\_ See oddly
shaped
post [below].
\_ Nope. But then I am
not trying to invent
a standard by which
OJ could be punished
despite his legal
innocence.
\_ Where did I EVER
say Rove should
be punished under
my criteria?
\_ So if Rove were
exonerated, you
would not clamor
for his removal?
/--------------------------------------------/
If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, I would accept that.
\_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald? So you're still
saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found
him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still
want to see him removed? And that is not "punished despit
his legal innocence" in what sense?
\_ What does convicingly mean when used without
qualifiers? It means convincing to an informed observer
who can be persuaded both ways.
This thread has deviated way off course.
You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only
thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on
as being factually true (but probably never practically
verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or
my political beliefs.
Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on
UNENDINGLY.
\_ I think your politics are abundantly clear. The
question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even
if he is found legally innocent?
\_ It depends on who you ask.
I'm too tired to answer myself.
\_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again? If
you've made up your mind, admit that. Being
intellectually dishonest is probably worse than
having a closed mind.
\_ Oh god, I've been trolled. Fuck you troller.
If you were an innocent motd poster, I
apologize.
\_ Hardly. You have been shown to be a
charlatan though.
\_ <roll eyes>
Who are you dude?
I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu
\_ But apparently you're not willing
to answer the question whether Rove
should be punished depite his legal
innocence, but that might cause you
to contradict yourself again.
\_ I would like to know that I am
not being trolled. Please
identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu
\_ Heh. Show a little
intellectual honesty. It's
not like we'd be surprised by
your answer.
\_ Okay, anonymous dude:
You see contradictions
where I do not.
You see intellectual
dishonesty where I do not.
Your jump to these two
claims are indicative of a
troll, though not proof.
You've been called out, and
you have not come out to
back up what you've
written. -jctwu
\_ Re "sensitive": carve
out space between legal
and illegal? "Actually,
I am just using the
words in the article".
Well, later, "I am
carving out a space"
after all.
\_ Both facts are
true at the same time
\_ Spin, jctwu, spin.
\_ same to you,
buddy
Will you accept F's
judgement? "How do you
translate [not happy] to
[will not accept]?"
As it turns out, you
want Rove to be
convincingly ethical.
To whom? F? Well, not
F after all, but an
informed observer. So
you don't accept F's
judgement. How about
\_ This is a jump in
logic
punishing Rove? "Where
did I EVER say Rove
should be punished
under my criteria?" So
would clamor for his
removal? Or are you
going to contradict
yourself again?
\_ Non-sophisticated:
What are you talking about?
Faux sophistication / aloofness:
"Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear
meaning but for some reason really isn't
here.
\_ troll! or coward!
one or both may
be true. |
| 5/16 |
|
| csua.org/u/cr9 -> proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=868979561&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1121796075&clientId=1568#fulltext Abstract (Document Summary) The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms Wilson's involvement in her husb and's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brack ets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the pe rson familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a read er that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifi cally describe Ms Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar wi th the memo said. Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified informat ion -- top secret, secret and confidential -- all indicating various lev els of "damage" to national security if disclosed. There also is an uncl assified designation -- indicating information that wouldn't harm nation al security if shared with the public -- but that wasn't the case for th e material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department's Bureau of I ntelligence and Research. It isn't known what level of classification wa s assigned to the information in the memo. Similarly, one of Mr Cooper's other sources, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, said he had heard Mr Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but he didn't identify he r any further, according to Mr Cooper. Full Text (1003 words) Copyright 2005, Dow Jones & Company Inc. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited wi thout permission. A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak ca se made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document. A special prosecutor is investigating whether Bush administration officia ls broke the law by intentionally outing a covert intelligence operative . Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003 , was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency. News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bu sh yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any memb er of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent's name. In a ne ws conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategis t, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms Wilson's CIA employment with two reporte rs, Mr Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing. "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administrat ion," Mr Bush said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later dispute d the suggestion that the president had shifted his position. The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for o fficials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the iden tity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed. On July 6, 2003, former diplomat Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for t he New York Times, disputing administration arguments that Iraq had soug ht to buy uranium ore from Africa to make nuclear weapons. The following day, President Bush and top cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One. The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms Wilson's involvement in her husb and's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brack ets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the pe rson familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a read er that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifi cally describe Ms Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar wi th the memo said. Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified informat ion -- top secret, secret and confidential -- all indicating various lev els of "damage" to national security if disclosed. There also is an uncl assified designation -- indicating information that wouldn't harm nation al security if shared with the public -- but that wasn't the case for th e material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department's Bureau of I ntelligence and Research. It isn't known what level of classification wa s assigned to the information in the memo. Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the und er secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circu lated are issues as Mr Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the l eak of Ms Wilson's identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. Mr Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the w eek of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms Wilson's CI A identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14. In that piece, Mr No vak identified Valerie Plame, using Ms Wilson's maiden name, saying tha t "two senior administration officials" had told him that Ms Wilson sug gested sending her husband to Niger. Mr Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press se cretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr Fleischer didn't respond to Mr Novak's inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury. In an October 2003 article on the memo, The Wall Street Journal reported that it details a meeting in early 2002 in which CIA officials discussed how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. Ms Plame, an agent working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction , recommended her husband, an expert on Africa, to travel to Niger to in vestigate the matter. White House officials had been warning reporters off the notion that the trip to Niger was ordered by Vice President Dick Cheney, as Mr Wilson h ad suggested. Emails and a first-person account published this week of h is grand-jury testimony by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper support this notion. The grand jury is set to expire in October in this case, t hough its tenure could be extended for six months. It is possible that reporters learned Ms Plame's identity from governmen t officials who hadn't seen the memo. Mr Cooper has testified and writt en that he was first told of Mr Wilson's wife by Mr Rove, the White Ho use deputy chief of staff. Similarly, one of Mr Cooper's other sources, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, said he had heard Mr Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but he didn't identify her any further, according to Mr Cooper. The fact that two top White House officials discussed a CIA agent with re porters has prompted a furor in Washington, with Democrats calling for t he firing of Mr Rove. A new ABC News poll signaled how the matter has damaged the administratio n's credibility -- and the political peril Mr Rove still faces. Just 25 % of Americans say the White House is fully cooperating with the federal investigation into the leak of Ms Plame's identity, down from about ha lf when the investigation began nearly two years ago. Moreover, 75% said Mr Rove should lose his job if he leaked classified information. The p oll of 1,008 adults, conducted July 13- 17, has a margin of error of thr ee percentage points. |
| wsj.com -> online.wsj.com/public/us DELL'S EARNINGS ROSE 22% last quarter on a 21% jump in revenue. Overseas sales beat expectations, helped by a weak dollar and sales to big corporate customers were strong. Consumer prices in China rose 38% in April, the sharpest increase in seven years. Beijing took further measures to curb bank lending that is fueling inflation. Sonia Gandhi's party won an upset victory in India's elections, as millions of impoverished voters threw out the Vajpayee government. She is likely to become India's first foreign-born leader. Terrorism Fears Crush Plans for LNG Many coastal towns around the US and in parts of Mexico are rejecting plans for liquefied-natural-gas terminals, despite the substantial economic benefits they would bring, out of fear of terrorism. Photos Key to Defense in Prison Case The photos of prisoner abuse are key to the defense of at least one of the guards who claims he was following orders from intelligence personnel and interrogators. Defendants have attracted a dream team of attorneys who could thwart Bush's plan to win quick convictions. Workers Chafe at GPS Tracking As employers increasingly turn to GPS technology to keep track of their fleets, more workers are balking at having the boss constantly looking over their shoulders. Hitting the Green With the economy continuing its comeback, a profitable wind was at the back of many corporations in the first quarter. Leadership As companies have sought to slash expenses, plenty of fat has been cut -- and plenty of mistakes have been made. Now comes the good news: Executives may finally be learning from their mistakes. What to Believe About 'The Day After' The upcoming disaster flick, "The Day After Tomorrow," is hitting theaters at a pivotal moment in research into whether the current global warming caused by the greenhouse effect could, paradoxically, trigger a deep freeze in some regions. May Economic Forecasting Survey See individual forecasts from 55 economists for GDP, inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Plus, just how fast is a "measured pace," how would the stock market perform if Kerry is elected and who is most likely to succeed Greenspan at the Fed? |