Miscellaneous News Items

[DrSmellThis]

And for my sixth post of the

day, a moving film (Music by Pink Floyd):

http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/M...000A/2000.html

[DrSmellThis]

Too bad he doesn't have a wife in the CIA! -- DST

October 24, 2005


Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges

By

RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and

DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on

possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to

pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an

overzealous prosecutor.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the

end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a

defining moment of President Bush's second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.



Karl

Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President

Dick

Cheney's chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy. Other officials could

also face charges in connection with the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer in 2003.

On

Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,

Republican of

Martha

Stewart and her stock sale, "where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said

about something that wasn't a crime."

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "that if there is going to be an

indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where

they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation

was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

President Bush said several weeks ago that Mr. Fitzgerald

had handled the case in "a very dignified way," making it more difficult for Republicans to portray him

negatively.

But allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among

Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury

mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case, one Republican with close ties to the White House said Sunday.

Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing

politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.

Some Republicans have also been

reprising a theme that was often sounded by Democrats during the investigations into President

Bill

Clinton, that special prosecutors and independent counsels lack accountability and too often pursue cases

until they find someone to charge.

Congressional Republicans have also been signaling that they want to put some

distance between their agenda and the White House's potential legal and political woes, seeking to cast the leak

case as an inside-the-Beltway phenomenon of little interest to most voters.

"I think we just need to stick

to our knitting on the topics and the subjects the American people care about," Senator Sam Brownback,

Republican of

Kansas, said on "Fox News Sunday."

The case, which traces back to an effort by the White House

to rebut criticism of its use of intelligence to justify the invasion of

[url="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo"]Iraq[

/url], has grown into a crisis for the administration that has the potential to shape the remainder of Mr. Bush's

second term. Democrats signaled Sunday that they would use the inquiry to help weave a broader tapestry portraying

the Republican Party as corrupt and the White House as dishonest with the American people.

"We know that

the president wasn't truthful with us when he sent us to Iraq,"

Howard

Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said on "This Week" on ABC. "What got

Rove and Libby in trouble was because they were attacking, which the Republicans always do, attacking somebody who

criticized them and disagreed with them. They make the attacks personal. They go over the line."

Beyond

introducing a Web site for his office last week, Mr. Fitzgerald has given no public hints of what, if any, action he

might take. Whatever he decides, he is expected to make an announcement before Friday, the final day of the term of

his grand jury. In the past, the grand jury has met on Wednesdays and Fridays.

His silence has left much of

official Washington and nearly everyone who works at or with the White House in a state of high anxiety. That has

been compounded by the widespread belief that there are aspects of the case beyond those directly involving Mr. Rove

and Mr. Libby that remain all but unknown outside of Mr. Fitzgerald's office. Among them is the mystery of who

first provided the C.I.A. officer's identity to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who published it on July

14, 2003.

The negative effects on Mr. Bush's presidency if his senior aides were indicted, said James A.

Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington,

would be as great as the positive effects of Mr. Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"This

is the most important turning point for his administration in terms of turning down and losing support," Mr.

Thurber said.

A weakened White House, he said, could lead to further infighting among the conservatives who

provide most of Mr. Bush's legislative, grass-roots and financial support, and could leave the administration with

even less political clout to sway Democrats in Republican-leaning states to back Mr. Bush's agenda.

Republicans

acknowledged the problems facing the White House but said Mr. Bush would ultimately be judged on whether he produced

results in addressing the issues of most concern to the American people.

"If you look at poll numbers and

things like that, we face challenges," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. But

even in the last few months, he said, the White House has made "tremendous long-term progress" on a

variety of fronts.

He cited the referendum on a constitution in Iraq, signs that the economy remains strong and

what he characterized as evidence that Mr. Bush's signature education legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act, is

producing measurable results.

Mr. Fitzgerald has been focused on whether there was an illegal effort at the

White House to undermine the credibility of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who became a critic of the

administration's Iraq policy by his dismissive comments over the possibility that Baghdad had sought to buy uranium

fuel from

Nige

r.

The prosecutor has sought to determine if the effort against Mr. Wilson involved the intentional

identification of his wife, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has tried to find out whether Bush officials violated the

law that protects the identities of undercover officers like Ms. Wilson or sought to impede the inquiry by

misleading investigators or providing false information about their actions.

[Mtnjim]

THE

BUSINESS CLIMATE HOAX
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

President Bush just can't leave bad enough

alone.

With the Gulf Coast physically battered by Hurricane Katrina, the
president's reconstruction plan is on

track to do further harm to a
region that was poor and maldeveloped even before the hurricane struck.

The core

of his proposal is the creation of a Gulf Opportunity Zone that
would provide massive depreciation and tax benefits

to firms investing
in new plant and machinery in the region. Translation: giant subsidies
for oil companies and

casinos.

Hurricane Wilma is on the way to Florida. Tropical Storm Alpha is
brewing in the Caribbean. Scientists

say a combination of natural
hurricane cycles and global warming very likely mean we are going to see
more, and

more intense hurricanes over the next many years. So, Katrina
reconstruction is not likely to be the last major

clean-up and recovery
effort during the next decade-plus.

How does a tax giveaway plan for big business end up

as the centerpiece
of the president's reconstruction plan?

It's easy enough to say the administration never

misses an opportunity
to cut taxes and do favors for its big business backers. And that's
true. It's also easy

enough to point to the influence of right-wing
think tanks like the Heritage Foundation in designing

the
administration's plan. And there's no disputing that, either.

But something more is going on, too -- a

decades-long effort to promote
the idea that cities and states (and nations, for that matter) will best
develop by

cutting taxes and providing subsidies to big business.

Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First and

author of The
Great American Job Scam (Berrett-Koehler Press, 2005), shows that these
policies are not only

unjust, they are unwise.

In The Great American Job Scam, LeRoy, whose organization has led the
way in trying to

counter the business climate ideology, provides case
study after case study of corporate rip-offs of communities

and states.
One example is Marriott's leveraging of a threat to locate its
headquarters in Virginia to extract

more than $50 million in gifts from
Maryland -- even though the company had already decided to build its

new
headquarters in Maryland, where it was already located. Another is Dell
Computer's finagling of a roughly

$250 million subsidy package from
North Carolina -- as an incentive to invest $100 million to $115 million
in the

state. The Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice found that, over
the course of the 1980s, Louisiana granted $2.5

billion in property tax
exemptions, nearly a billion of which would have gone to schools in the
state.

States

and cities do not get much in return for these donations to the
corporate coffer, which is part of what makes them

so flawed as
development policy. LeRoy shows how blind faith, bad negotiating and
illusory promises leave local

and state government officials with little
or no guarantee that new and permanent jobs will be created.

But

it's not just that they get manipulated. LeRoy's key point is that
business does not invest because of the tax

breaks they are able to
extract. Location decisions are driven by access to suppliers and
customers, labor costs

and skills, transportation facilities and costs,
the cost of utilities, land or rent costs and, not so

incidentally, the
whim of executives. Tax rates make almost no difference in location
decisions. So generous tax

breaks will rarely attract investments that
would not otherwise have been made.

Crudely put, in the case of

Katrina reconstruction, oil and
petrochemical companies are not going to locate or rebuild in the Gulf
area

because of tax breaks. They build there because there is oil there.

Perhaps most enlightening in LeRoy's book is

his explanation of the site
location consulting industry, which has driven the competition among
states and cities

for investments.

A single firm, Fantus Factory Locating Service, played a key role in
developing the business

climate ideology. By 1977, it had claimed to
assist with more than 4,000 corporate relocations. Fantus is now

an
affiliate of the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche.

Fantus, and the other players in the small field of

advising
corporations on how to shift locations and blackmail cities into
lavishing them with tax breaks and

subsidies, realized their business
had created another market niche: advising cities and states on how to
make

themselves attractive to investors. Thus they work both sides of
the street -- instructing the corporate

extortionists, and advising
governments on how to make themselves appear desirable to the

extortionists.

There's not a lot of subtlety in the business. In March 2004, the
national director of Ernst &

Young's Business Incentive Practice and a
former Boeing official led a workshop at a trade association

of
corporate officers handling government relations. Their powerpoint
presentation was leaked. Its title: "Turning

Your State Government
Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow."

The combination of windfall

subsidies for big business and low wages for
workers represents the "low-road" of economic development, LeRoy

says.
It leaves communities poorer and more vulnerable. Louisiana and
Mississippi have long traveled that road.

It's not unrelated to why they
were so poor before Katrina hit.

[Mtnjim]

U.S. NEWS/HARVARD/BP BAN REPORTERS FROM FIRST AMENDMENT ROOM
By Russell Mokhiber and

Robert Weissman

This morning, at the National Press Club, U.S. News and World Report
held a press event to

announce the release of its list of "America's
Best Leaders 2005."

The event was co-sponsored by the Center for

Public Leadership at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

And it was paid for by the

oil giant BP.

We saw a notice of the event on the National Press Club's web site.

At the appointed time, we

went over to the First Amendment Lounge to
attend the event.

C-Span was covering it (Brian Lamb was chosen as

one of the "best
leaders" -- as was Roger Ailes of Fox News, Thomas Friedman of the New
York Times, Secretary of

State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of
State Colin Powell, among others.)

So, we show up at the door to

attend and are met by James Long, the man
who organized the event for U.S. News and World Report.

Long tells us

that we are not allowed into the press briefing.

Why not?

"Well, on all the notices, it said RSVP," Long said.

"And you didn't RSVP."

We didn't see anything about RSVP. But okay, we'll RSVP now.

"No, you won't," Long

said. "You are not allowed in."

We're members of the National Press Club.

And we understand the policy of the

Press Club -- he who rents the room
rules.

So, if BP and Harvard University and U.S. News and World Report rent

the
room, they decide who attends.

But the question is why?

Why, when all the press in the world were allowed

in, were we not?

Well, it has to do with the last U.S. News and World Report event we
attended at the Press

Club, earlier this month.

It was titled, "Corporate America and Congress: Has Sarbanes-Oxley
Restored Investor

Confidence?"

And in an article published two weeks ago in Corporate Crime Reporter,
we described how that event

was paid for by Altria.

Altria?

A tobacco company paying for a conference on social responsibility?

That's

what we wanted to know.

The panelists at the Altria/U.S. News & World Report event were Senator
Chuck Hagel

(R-Nebraska), William J. McDonough, the chairman of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), John J.

Castellini,
president of the Business Roundtable, and Alyssa Machold Ellsworth,
managing director of the Council

of Institutional Investors.

During the question-and-answer session, we stood up and asked the
following

question:

"Senator Hagel said transparency is critical. What's the deal exactly
between U.S. News & World

Report and Altria? What are the details of the
sponsorship? Members of the social responsibility community refuse

to
invest in tobacco companies. Did you find it a little odd that a panel
on corporate responsibility is being

sponsored by a tobacco company?"

Nobody found it odd.

We pointed out in that article that a group of public

health advocates
at the University of California San Francisco have set up a web site

--
www.altriameanstobacco.com -- that documents that in fact the company
changed its name from Phillip

Morris to Altria "to hide the taint of
tobacco and attempt to restore a corporate image brought low by decades
of

deception and death."

We also made the point that "not too long ago, it would have been
considered improper for

a major news organization to team up with a
major tobacco company to sponsor a forum on corporate

social
responsibility -- after all, tobacco companies are in the business of
killing off their customers."

This

apparently did not please Mort Zuckerman and the other "leaders" at
U.S. News and World Report.

And with

today's "leadership" event being broadcast on C-Span, you
wouldn't want any pesky questions about how is it that

an oil giant with
a shady history on the north slope of Alaska is funding a press event
co-sponsored by U.S. News

and World Report and Harvard University.

And so, U.S. News and World Report, and Harvard University and

BP,
decided that the best way was to bar those who would ask impolitic
questions from the First Amendment

Room.

How can we celebrate a list of leaders that includes Rice, Powell,
Friedman and Ailes -- a foursome who

helped lead the country into a
disastrous war of aggression -- defined by former Supreme Court Justice
and

Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson as "the supreme international
crime" -- a war of aggression that has cost close

to 2,000 young
American lives and untold thousands of Iraqi civilian lives?

And how can U.S. News and Harvard --

BP we can understand -- be
complicit in barring reporters from an open press event from the First
Amendment Room

at the National Press Club -- solely because those
reporters were destined to ask questions that might embarrass

the people
sponsoring the event?

It is this kind of arrogance that has led the American people to turn on
their

leaders -- according to a poll released today by U.S. News, 64
percent of Americans believe leaders today are

corrupted by power and 62
percent believe they are primarily looking for monetary enrichment --
including those

that were celebrated today in the First Amendment Room.

[DrSmellThis]

h

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401734.html?referrer=emailarticle

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.washingtonpo

st.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html

[DrSmellThis]

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A.

Officer, Notes Show
By David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl /

The New York Times



WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the

C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity

became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed

conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a

federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers

said.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle

of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the

administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers said the

notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made

public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Mr.

Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the

director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they

contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that

her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who

discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby,

both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her

link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his

conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an

illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr.

Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status.

Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to

decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl

Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have

said. It is not publicly known whether other officials may be charged.

The notes help explain the legal

difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first

heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission

to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program.



But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald’s possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson — who

is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame — from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony

suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr.

Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.

The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the

name of Mr. Wilson’s wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed

by the C.I.A. and that she may have helped arrange her husband’s trip.

Some lawyers in the case have said Mr.

Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be

difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury. Lawyers involved in the case said they

have no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was

interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald

about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.

But the evidence of Mr.

Cheney’s direct involvement in the effort to learn more about Mr. Wilson is sure to intensify the political pressure

on the White House in a week of high anxiety among Republicans about the potential for the case to deal a sharp blow

to Mr. Bush’s presidency.

Mr. Tenet was not available for comment on Monday night. But another former senior

intelligence official said that Mr. Tenet had been interviewed by the special prosecutor and his staff in early

2004, and never appeared before the grand jury. Mr. Tenet has not talked since then to the prosecutors, the former

official said.

The former official said he strongly doubted that the White House learned about Ms. Plame from

Mr. Tenet.

On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House

continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is

indicted will step aside.

On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, the

Washington Post published a front page story reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to the

Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The story did not name

the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about

Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union

address.

An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by

Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White

House had "twisted" the intelligence about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article

in The New York Times. The note written by Mr. Libby will be a key piece of evidence in a false statement case

against Mr. Libby if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, according to lawyers in the case. It also explains why Mr.

Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr.

Libby.

The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and

his wife. Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine, in his account of a deposition on the subject, wrote that he asked Mr.

Libby whether he had even heard that Ms. Wilson had a role in sending her husband to Africa. According to Mr.

Cooper, Mr. Libby did not use Ms. Wilson’s name but replied, "Yeah, I’ve heard that too."

In her testimony to

the grand jury, Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times said that Mr. Libby sought from the start of her

three conversations with him to "insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson’s charges."

Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions

about Mr. Cheney, Ms. Miller said. "He asked for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had

approved of his interview with me or was aware of them. The answer was no."

In addition to Mr. Cooper and Ms.

Miller, Mr. Fitzgerald is known to have interviewed three other journalists who spoke with Mr. Libby during June and

July 2003. They were Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, and Tim Russert of NBC News. Mr. Pincus

and Mr. Kessler have said that Mr. Libby did not Mr. Wilson’s wife with them in their conversations during the

period. Mr. Russert, in a statement, has declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first

learned the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife in the column by Mr. Novak, which appeared on July 14, 2003.

[belgareth]

From what I have heard, the

biggest question is whether or not outing a CIA spook is illegal in this situation. The morality is another issue,

everybody knows what I think of the morality in our capitol, but what I am concerned with now is the legal aspects.

Once that is cleared up, I think the lady has legal recourse for civil action against whoever actually did this.

I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be. Anybody here know something about that aspect?

[DrSmellThis]

It's possible to get away

with doing something illegal. So phrasing the question as "was it illegal?" can be deceptive. (For example, if

someone kills a person in cold blood but gets off on a technicality, was killing the person in cold blood

therefore legal?)

I'm not a lawyer, but have heard the legal aspects discussed fairly often over the

past months. The way I understand it, outing a CIA agent "knowingly" and "deliberately" is hard to prove, because

the law is written so the standards of proof for this are very high. That is to prevent someone from being convicted

of treason and hung for accidentally letting something slip, or letting something slip you didn't know wasn't

public knowledge (neither issue of which is realistically in question here, BTW).

There is a difference between

asking whether a particular illegal event occured, and whether a particular individual will be successfully

prosecuted. The act of outing this kind of agent deliberately and knowingly is absolutely illegal and treasonous,

assuming such an act occured. Further, it is almost inconceivable that the act didn't occur, and the motivation for

it seems clear, from every account.

But will every aspect of being "knowing" and "deliberate" be proven for a

particular defendant? That depends on the talent of the prosecutor and the available evidence. Proving anything

psychological, like knowingness and deliberateness, is notoriously difficult. Obviously, the guilty parties have had

all the time and means in the world to destroy evidence, and have the best representation money can buy. Therefore a

lot will hang on who is willing to talk, etc. These people calculated these acts after much deliberation, and must

have felt felt they would get away with it. The question is how stupid they were or were not, versus how smart the

special prosecutor is.

Conspiracy, perjury, and some other related charges surrounding the incident aren't so

hard to prove, however; hence the speculation that these are the kinds of charges that will ultimately stick. It

looks virtually certain that somebody, likely multiple parties, will be indicted. That is itself

remarkable.

Republicans will of course argue that perjury is no big deal, for example, even though that is what

they impeached Clinton for. But we needn't let spin about legal technicalities let us lose sight of what is

happening in our country. If they all get off, my disgust and outrage will not be less. Politicians have never been

easy to prosecute. It is big news whenever one gets caught on anything.

[belgareth]

It's

possible to get away with doing something illegal. So phrasing the question as "was it illegal?" can be deceptive.

(For example, if someone kills a person in cold blood but gets off on a technicality, was killing the person in cold

blood therefore legal?)

Of course it wasn't legal. They still did something illegal. That's

sophistry.

I'm not a lawyer, but have heard the legal aspects discussed fairly often over

the past months. The way I understand it, outing a CIA agent "knowingly" and "deliberately" is hard to prove,

because the law is written so the standards of proof for this are very high. That is to prevent someone from being

convicted of treason and hung for accidentally letting something slip, or letting something slip you didn't know

wasn't public knowledge (neither issue of which is realistically in question here, BTW).

I've heard

several versions from several people. Some of those people are lawyers and even they don't agree on whether or not

it was actually illegal. That's why I asked the question.

Accidently letting something slip is a poor example

as people are regularly charged for accidents. A person with TS or above clearance is expected to know better than

to "Let something slip" That is not an excuse. I clearly remember the lectures back in the military when I had a

clearance.

Everything is in question until proven otherwise in a court of law. The guy investigating it is a

very good man and not in anybody's pocket, give him a chance to do his job. I'm not going to convict anybody at

any time based on what I read anywhere. Anything else is wrong

There is a difference between

asking whether a particular illegal event occured, and whether a particular individual will be successfully

prosecuted. The act of outing this kind of agent deliberately and knowingly is absolutely illegal and treasonous,

assuming such an act occured. Further, it is almost inconceivable that the act didn't occur, and the motivation for

it seems clear, from every account.

Sorry to disagree but you don't know that and neither do I. Even

legal experts aren't sure if it was an illegal act, certainly not sure enough to try to prosecute. Even the guy

investigating still isn't sure and he is wel known for his fairness and skill.

But will

every aspect of being "knowing" and "deliberate" be proven for a particular defendant? Is it therefore technically

"illegal"? That depends on the talent of the prosecutor and the available evidence. Proving anything psychological,

like knowingness and deliberateness, is notoriously difficult. Obviously, the guilty parties have had all the time

and means in the world to destroy evidence, and have the best representation money can buy. Therefore a lot will

hang on who is willing to talk, etc.

Conspiracy, perjury, and some other related charges aren't hard to prove,

however, hence the speculation that these are the kinds of charges that willp stick

I already addressed

that so won't repeat myself.

[DrSmellThis]

As I've explained, phrasing

it as about whether the acts were illegal can be deceptive. But if you think it's not, please post articles that

can explain why. I havent heard the legal experts you have, apparently, and would love to see a coherent, balanced

legal argument.

What I said obviously wasn't "sophistry", since it was an appropriate case example in support of

establishing a necessary logical distinction, a distinction missing from much of the spin, the lack of which results

in misunderstanding. Someone not understanding or agreeing with this does not equal someone else's "sophistry".

Please think more carefully before throwing around vague, negative labels that are unlikely to reflect on their

target.

No one is not letting prosecutors do their job by posting information people deserve to know. I tried to

clear a related misunderstanding up in the past in detail, by distinguishing "legal" from "personal" responsibility.

If we could be bothered only by those specific things specific politicians have been convicted of, if our beliefs

about the political world were determined entirely by legal status, we would virtually never have the right to be

bothered by politicians. I choose to give the law its due, and yet have my beliefs function independently from it.

[belgareth]

As I clearly said, I have heard

both, that it is legal and illegal. Maybe it isn't clear that when I said heard I really meant heard, as in

conversation with other people, some of whom were lawyers. And as I also said, the legal experts, lawyers, disagree

on the legality. I don't claim to be an expert and phrased it as a question for somebody that might have some

expertise in that area. Last I knew your expertise was not in the legal field. Without meaning offense I feel that

the opinions of practicing lawyers carries more weight than your opinion on legal matters. And as I said, they

disagree.

Yes, anybody who says that a person who committed cold blooded murder but was let off on a

technicality did not commit a crime is using sophistry. Are you taking it I meant your statement? If so, you

misunderstood the statement.

[DrSmellThis]

Yes, I misunderstood your

intended meaning. I thought about "giving you the benefit of the doubt" exactly per your explanation, but then

reread it a few times and thought the other reference was clearly implied. Damn words. Sorry about that, as you

didn't intend for it to come out that way.

I remain interested. I agree my legal opinion doesn't matter much,

but I had more detail on the relevant legal issues than you posted, and decided to share what I read about it. I've

not read a single coherent argument that nothing they did was illegal, even the outing part. Almost everyone is

predicting the prosecutor will bring charges of some kind by early next week. I've only heard it put something like

the way I related it, especially as regards questions of treason, which may be different from whether it is illegal

in other ways (hence your lecture from military training?). I'd be happy to be shown a more accurate analysis.

[belgareth]

Yes, I

misunderstood your intended meaning. I thought about "giving you the benefit of the doubt" exactly per your

explanation, but then reread it a few times and thought the other reference was clearly implied. Damn words. Sorry

about that, as you didn't intend for it to come out that way.

I thought that might be the case. No

problem.

I remain interested. I agree my legal opinion doesn't matter much, but I had more

detail on the relevant legal issues than you posted, and decided to share what I read about it. I've not read a

single legal argument that nothing they did was illegal, even the outing part. Almost everyone is predicting the

prosecutor will bring charges of some kind by early next week. I've only heard it put something like the way I

related it, especially as regards questions of treason, which may be different from whether it is illegal in other

ways (hence your lecture from military training?). I'd be happy to be shown a more accurate analysis.

I've had a lot of detail too. Did you know that one of the best cures for insomnia is reading legal analysis?



There are several lawyers in one of the groups I meet with. A couple of them are criminal lawyers although

that may be an oxymoron. In any event, the topic has come up several times and my impression, based on the vehemence

of their discussions, I'd say it is a pretty hotly contested issue among that profession.

I'd love to hear a

solid analysis from both perspectives since it seems there is a lot of debate on the subject. Even charges being

filed don't really prove anything, only the final results can prove much and what that proves isn't necessarily

justice.

[DrSmellThis]

You've got that right.

Whether the legal process brings justice is another matter. I do wish the law could be applied evenly across the

board; but I guess not in this universe, where money and power is a ticket to wickedness.

Not to imply anything

about everyone from a particular party, but were they Republican lawyers? I think this is a hotly contested

political issue. The hard part is that lawyers are not only extremely specialized any more; they will often will say

any damn thing to further their agenda, so its hard to believe any of them.

I bet some better analysis will

become available in the coming few weeks. I still predict the issue will be more a matter of provability than

legality, per se.

[DrSmellThis]

This is the official site of

Fiitzgerald's investigation. There is very little yet posted there, but no doubt there soon will

be:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

[belgareth]

I think we all wish that about

the law. Perhaps if there were fewer laws there would be fewer loopholes for lawyers to slide cases out through. It

isn't even always the rich that get off because of the flaws in the system. Regardless of that, under our current

constitution, unless and untl somebody is proven guilty in a court of law they are innocent.

In Texas? A

democratic lawyer? Surely you jest. Actually, believe it or not the majority of this state's government is

democrats and has been quite a while. But I honestly don't know about the ones who were arguing as I keep a lot of

my personal opinions about the government to myself in my real life. At guess I'd say that they probably were both

republican because the make up of that group is pretty firmly so.

Under the constitution it's the same thing,

isn't it?

[DrSmellThis]

No one here wants to send

anyone to jail without a trial.

Just to show you what kind of man I am, here's a page that gives a Republican

analysis of the Plame leak, etc. I found it to be interesting reading, and like the amount of detail. To be sure,

I've heard another side, and points that were pretty much ignored here. But at least you know it's not unfair to

Republicans. Maybe someone else can post another

side.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/cat..._plame_affair/

[belgareth]

All I want is a fair trial, no

more or less. We all know that depending on which rag you read each person is either guilty as sin or free from sin.

Over all, I've found the best bet is to ignore the analysts because they all are biased. I asked before about guilt

and innocence and the scenerio of if he is innocent. I've also advocated for the full penalty of law depending on

what is proven. Are you going to advocate for nailing the prosecuter if it is demonstrated that he is misusing his

authority for political purposes? I am! That is not proven either but is a possibility.

Let's just say that I

am an equal opportunity sceptic, I doubt all positions equally and most especially when it looks like it could be

politically motivated.

[belgareth]

Public Giving Gov't, Business Lower Marks By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON –





The public's view of the government has eroded over the past year

and its view of business corporations is now at the lowest level in two decades.



The public's rating for the federal government has fallen from 59

percent favorable last year to 45 percent now, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the

Press. The favorable view of business corporations is also at 45 percent.

When dissatisfaction with national conditions is running high "people tend to be critical of institutions such

as the government, the Congress, and have rising discontent with business corporations, especially oil companies,"

said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. Only 20 percent of people said they have a favorable view of

oil companies — down from 32 percent in 2001.

The federal government

needs the public's trust to operate and businesses need the goodwill of customers, Kohut

said.

The public's view of the Department of Defense has dropped

from 76 percent favorable in 1997 to 56 percent during an unpopular war in Iraq. Even the view of the U.S.

military has dropped slightly, from 87 percent favorable to 82 percent now.

The political parties have slipped with the public, as well. Republicans are now viewed unfavorably by 49

percent and favorably by 42 percent. Despite the GOP's falling popularity, Democrats have not gained ground and are

seen favorably by 49 percent, down slightly from 53 percent last year.

Two institutions that have not slipped with the public are the news media, viewed positively by 52 percent,

and the Supreme Court, 62 percent.

The poll of 2,006 adults was taken

Oct. 12-24 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, larger for

subgroups.

[DrSmellThis]

All I want is

a fair trial, no more or less. We all know that depending on which rag you read each person is either guilty as sin

or free from sin. Over all, I've found the best bet is to ignore the analysts because they all are biased. I asked

before about guilt and innocence and the scenerio of if he is innocent. I've also advocated for the full penalty of

law depending on what is proven. Are you going to advocate for nailing the prosecuter if it is demonstrated that he

is misusing his authority for political purposes? I am! That is not proven either but is a possibility.

Let's

just say that I am an equal opportunity sceptic, I doubt all positions equally and most especially when it looks

like it could be politically motivated.

If a prosecutor is unprofessional, that hurts everybody.

[belgareth]

If a

prosecutor is unprofessional, that hurts everybody.

Unprofessional is one thing and you are right that

it hurts everybody. I am asking about what should be done if he is intentionally using his office for political

purposes, if he is bringing false charges in an attempt to discredit or undermine another person or party. In my

eyes that is also a form of treason but that's very subjective.

[DrSmellThis]

Any time you pervert Democracy

it is subtle treason, ethically, if you are a purist -- which you and I tend to be moreso than average. But you're

correct it is subjective how one determines that. Among the most egregious perversions is election fraud. That's

pretty treasonous.

It went without saying that if a prosecutor breaks laws they are liable as any one else; since

I expect them to be professional -- a stricter standard than simply keeping it legal. If they are legal but

egregiously unprofessional, they should lose their professions. For lesser offenses they should be disciplined and

lose their position on a case.

Curiously, the larger challenge to the justice system is primarily about

the possibility of over-zealous prosecutors to political spin masters, it seems. In the last administration the spin

was about Kenneth Starr, who was prosecuting Clinton for lying about having an affair, IIRC. But in general, our

whole system goes on trial, and should; any time it is stretched to its limit, in attempting to hold power

accountable. We should learn a lot through all of this, just as we did with Watergate.

[Mtnjim]

Looks like he'll have to

try again:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ons/index.html

[Mtnjim]

From the "Risks" newsletter, a

publication of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM):

Subject: Printer steganography (Mike

Musgrove)

Many color printers (Xerox, HP, etc.) add barely visible yellow dots that
encode printer serial

numbers and time stamps (down to the minute).
Intended primarily to combat counterfeiters, the purportedly

"secret"
steganographic code in color printer copies has now been decoded by four
people at the Electronic

Frontier Foundation. (The encoding is
straightforward, and includes no encryption.) There are of course

various
slippery-slope privacy issues. [Source: Mike Musgrove, Sleuths Crack
Tracking Code Discovered in Color

Printers, *The Washington Post*, 19 Oct
2005, D01;

PGN-ed]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101801663.html

[Also

noted by Amos Shapir, who suggests you look at the eff site, which
nicely documents the encoding:


http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/
PGN]

[Mtnjim]

This is for anyone living in Massachusetts:

Subject: Mileage sign errors

Excerpt

from

http:/

/www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/16/state_rejects_somerville_i_93_lane_shift/

We finally have an

answer about how those new state mileage signs got so
terribly messed up. And the blame is being placed on Bill

Gates.
MassHighway admitted that the state had found 19 legends on the new signs
with significant errors in

mileage. That's 12 percent of the 164 new signs
in the $1.05 million contract.

According to the contractor,

some of the distances were calculated using
Microsoft's Streets & Trips software. According to Microsoft, the

software
without a GPS hookup costs $39.95. This contractor was paid $130,000 by the
state.

Apparently the

contractor had tried to use Mapquest, but found it
unreliable.

Excerpt

from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...brate_the_bus/

One

sign on Interstate 93 north, near Exit 45 in Andover, reported that
Manchester, N.H. was 42 miles away, although

the actual distance is just a
bit more than 28 miles. Another sign on Route 128/95 in Needham reported
that

Wellesley is 7 miles away. The actual distance is slightly less than 3
miles. A sign on Route 3 north in Braintree

listed the distance to I-93 as 5
miles when the distance by odometer was 3 miles.

[DrSmellThis]

Looks like

he'll have to try

again:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/

10/27/miers.nominations/index.html

Does anyone think the next nominee will be any better?

[belgareth]

I found it interesting that the

republicans gave her at least as much trouble for her more moderate views than the dems gave her.

[Mtnjim]

Does anyone

think the next nominee will be any better?

From "W"??
Be serious!!

Perhaps this was his try at "I'm

trying to put a moderate in" before he puts who he really wants in?? The next one could very well be much worse!

[DrSmellThis]

I found it

interesting that the republicans gave her at least as much trouble for her more moderate views than the dems gave

her.

I think it was all about the Republican reaction. Dems saw her mainly as pro-corporation -- "not good,

but what can you do?"

It is interesting, because it really highlights what the right wing expect. They will

settle for nothing other than an anti-human rights, government-in-control-of-our-lives, theocratic idealogue. A wee

bit perfectionist, aren't they?