Was Plame covert? (examples, world, security, working)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that is bordering on rude.. it appears to me you're insinuating I did all this just for the money. That is my perception and I find that extremely insulting!!
I think you're reading more into it than what was written. I am basically agreeing that for many, and perhaps particularly for those who can get into clearance work where the compensation tends to be quite good, the decision to leave early makes sense. I see such people frequently. It's nothing out of the ordinary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007
Nope, look again, I specifically spelled out Not releasable to foreign nationals after the first prompt.
The first prompt was asking the question at all. To repeat, you could have just answered it then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007
I work in a SCIF, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.. You absolutely must be cleared for SCI before entering in there or you will be on the ground with a gun on you.
Yes, I know what those are too, but SCI and NDA's do not comprise a clearance level. They are a shortcut to get need-to-know people in touch with what they need to know and nothing else without the far more costly and time-consuming process of running full and formal clearances and, where necessary, poly's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007
and no, you're completely wrong on classifying something NOFORN, but I have to leave it at that.. I can't explain any further.
Well, deprived of counsel, I guess I'll just have to live with the levels of misinformation I've built up over the past 35 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007
I can say that any document has to be classified as high as the highest classification of information in it. So if a 500 page training manual had one Top Secret paragraph in it and every other part was Unclassified, the book would have to be classified Top Secret. There is no way around that one..
No, there'd be no way around that one other than putting the TS paragraph into a classified annex. That might make the rest of the 500 pages a little more useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007
here's a document that sorta explains it, but isn't perfect. You're not going to find the actual guidelines on the intraweb..
A USDA primer for clearance newbies? What an eye-opener.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007
ok, I don't know what else to say on this one. Makes perfect sense to me...
No, but why don't we just give Scooter the same sentence we gave Clinton??? Perjury is perjury, obstruction is obstruction, right??
Well, there's one difference there in that Clinton was acquitted of such charges whereas Libby was convicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
When you look at the forest for the trees, you'll ask yourself why if they still believe this "crime" occurred and Armitage has ADMITTED it was he who leaked Plame's name and "status" why Fitzgerald does not go after Armitage. The fact that he doesn't speaks to the validity of the entire witch hunt from the get go.
It is inexcusable that there was as much as a single seedling to be investigated in this case. That a forest of trees has emerged is just another of many deep black marks recorded against this administration.
Free to ignore it??? Perhaps, but why on Earth would you??? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you haven't agreed with many judicial decisions in your time, so why would you now considering the author of the damned law is telling you what it means??? Again, it's absurd....
My personal reactions, whether up or down, to a case or to a decision are of no particular relevance at all, and Ms. Toensing's aren't either. When one of us occupies a position on the bench at a relevant level, then our thinking might indeed come into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
Not to those whom it inconveniences anyway. I don't even have to take a split second to know that if this weren't a "Bushie" or a "Neo Con" under the gun you'd concede the point.
No, it doesn't matter. Interpretation of statute is a judicial matter. Ms. Toensing is not so much as associated with the judicial branch, save for her occasional amicus filings and appearances as counsel within it.
My personal reactions, whether up or down, to a case or to a decision are of no particular relevance at all, and Ms. Toensing's aren't either. When one of us occupies a position on the bench at a relevant level, then our thinking might indeed come into play.
When one of us is asked our opinion as to what a law means and we are one of the few people on Earth who's opinion is actually FACT it will become extremely relevant. That is the case here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No, it doesn't matter. Interpretation of statute is a judicial matter. Ms. Toensing is not so much as associated with the judicial branch, save for her occasional amicus filings and appearances as counsel within it.
Any judge who would ignore the advice of the author of a statute as to it's meaning should be immediately removed from the bench. For starters the law is pretty damned clear in it's intent and Plame was NOT covered by it. This is plain and simple another example of legislating from the bench. Judges are free to ask for aid in interpretation and I'd say you don't get any better advice as to what a law means than to ask the author of the damned law. Purely irresponsible. I'd give the obligatory "In my opinion" but it's not even opinion.
Well, there's one difference there in that Clinton was acquitted of such charges whereas Libby was convicted.
By the Senate which is a tad different, but true....
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
It is inexcusable that there was as much as a single seedling to be investigated in this case. That a forest of trees has emerged is just another of many deep black marks recorded against this administration.
The forest grows from the seed of a crime that was never committed. An improper act took place. And to use your line of logic, as long as no conviction for "Leaking" Plame's name ever comes about that will continue to be the case. Keep trying to find a crime where one does not exist and confound the situation so no one realizes there never was a crime in the first place. Good strategy. The Bush Administration didn't grow that forest. The Liberal Witch Hunters did.
When one of us is asked our opinion as to what a law means and we are one of the few people on Earth who's opinion is actually FACT it will become extremely relevant. That is the case here.
The only fact that Victoria Toensing can attest to is what she herself took the law to mean. No more legal weight to attach to that than to what she might take the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment to mean. The process of judicial review is, perhaps not surprisingly, within the purview of the judicial branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
Any judge who would ignore the advice of the author of a statute as to it's meaning should be immediately removed from the bench.
You'd have a lot of vacancies on the bench to fill. It is the job of legislatures to codify what they mean. Courts will routinely assume that this job was accomplished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
For starters the law is pretty damned clear in it's intent and Plame was NOT covered by it.
The law doesn't mention Valerie Plame. You don't have much of a future as a judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
This is plain and simple another example of legislating from the bench.
No, it's an example of that separation of powers thing that the President and various of his minions seem to care so little about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
Judges are free to ask for aid in interpretation and I'd say you don't get any better advice as to what a law means than to ask the author of the damned law. Purely irresponsible. I'd give the obligatory "In my opinion" but it's not even opinion.
Judges can and sometimes do refer to legislative histories, just as they can and sometimes do refer to judicial histories from other jurisdictions. They do this at their discretion. Ms. Toensing, it should be remembered, has herself never been elected to anything. She was a lead staffer among those who wrote the draft language for a particular law, later enacted. This role accords her no special status at all, despite the fact that both she and you apparently wish to claim one.
The forest grows from the seed of a crime that was never committed. An improper act took place. And to use your line of logic, as long as no conviction for "Leaking" Plame's name ever comes about that will continue to be the case. Keep trying to find a crime where one does not exist and confound the situation so no one realizes there never was a crime in the first place. Good strategy. The Bush Administration didn't grow that forest. The Liberal Witch Hunters did.
A Special Counsel was appointed to investigate the matter of whether a crime or crimes had been committed in the Plame affair. During the course of that investigation, a separate crime was alleged to have been committed, and one I. Lewis Libby was indicted on five counts of perjury, lying, and obstruction of justice. He was tried on those charges by a jury of his peers and was convicted on four of the five counts. He was sentenced commensurate with the severity of the crimes that he committed.
The matter of the original investigation has not yet been resolved. It would be customary that the Special Counsel would issue a report of his conclusions at an appropriate time.
OJ was acquitted too. I guess it all depends on the leanings of the jury.
Juries are to require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt before returning a criminal conviction, and are free in any event to fly in the face of the facts and the law. Juries are to be the citizen's last line of defense against the potential tyrannies of government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
