Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
Poppinjay, Yakk,
I did see her bio and noted especially that she worked for Reagan. I also note that her piece is likely a partisan piece as well as an op ed.
But I found her arguments that the intent of the law (of which she should be considered an authority on) did not match this case to be persuasive.
If someone truly did out her maliciously (sp?) and it is a crime under the intent of the act, then I support prosecuting said individual. Otherwise, it is the same political bs that we deal with all too frequently.
|
Negligence or Maliciousness -- both are wrong.
I claim that the only reason why that article is worth reading is because, given her history, she has some authority on the subject. Because other than her opinion, no hard evidence is claimed or mentioned.
If her opinion isn't honest, then the piece is junk. Her political history places some doubt on her lack of bias, but doesn't mean she's dishonest. The blatant holes in her opinion piece, the lies by ommission I read in it, is why I believe she isn't giving an honest opinion, and is rather writing a dishonest adversarial piece.
1> I am pretty certain Plame was working for a CIA-shell company, not the CIA, at Langly. The CIA-shell company existed to make it difficult to determine the fact that Plame was a CIA agent. So the entire rant about "working at Langly" is dishonest -- as far as I am aware, Plame was
covertly working for the CIA at Langly.
In fact, one of the pieces of harm caused by this link was the CIA shell company being revealed as a CIA shell company. This risks every CIA agent who recieved funds from the CIA shell company with exposure.
2> The "for some time" quote. She claims that breaking Plame's cover would be legal if Plame was a domestic agent for at least 5 years. Then she asserts that Plame has been working in the US for "some time". "Some time" is a null-statement. She doesn't assert that Plame has been working in the US for 5 years -- in fact, she says
nothing hard about Plame's employment in the US or overseas, she simply slyly implies that Plame has been working in the US for so long that there is no crime here.
I see no evidence that the editorial writer even
knows how long Plame has been working in the USA. What I see is mumbly-mouth evasions and empty implications.
3> It quotes something the CIA operative told Novak in their conversation. This implies the editorial writer knew about the conversation and has a transcript. It doesn't bother mention the fact that the CIA operative told Novak
twice not to reveal Plame's identity. The CIA operative cannot legally tell Novak "Plame is a covert agent, do not report she works for the CIA", because Plame's covert agent status is by definition classified.
4> It never mentions the pile of classified evidence that the Judge in this case has examined that we have not, which convinced the Judge that the public interest overrides journalistic privledge.
All of these are flaws in the arguement and/or evidence that the author of the editorial isn't being honest with her readers. With no facts other than the author's opinion in the editorial, if the author is being dishonest her opinion is not worth considering.