Saturday, July 16, 2005
Applying some logic to the Plame case
The Plame case continues apace, and commentary flows from the right and the left of the commentariat. But there's plenty of illogic to go around. There's little info available from Fitzgerald - leaks from his office have been few and far between. But let's assume Fitzgerald is a competant prosecutor, and analyze what logically flows from that assumption.
Right now, a couple of silly story lines are making the rounds -
A popular line from the right, echoed in much of the mainstream media, is that no crime has been committed, since Plame was not a protected secret operative. This makes no sense at all. Early in the investigation, Fitzgerald interviewed officials of the CIA. The first order of business of a competant prosecutor would be to determine whether or not Plame's identity was indeed legally protected. If not, Fitzgerald's investigation would have been done months ago. He's not done. Therefore, Plame's identity was indeed protected, and knowingly revealing it would indeed constitute a crime.
From the left, there's the growing speculation that Judy Miller might be guilty of more than just contempt. Billmon writes: "if Judy revealed Plame's status as a NOC to anyone not legally authorized to know it, she deserves a nice long stretch in a federal pen for espionage". Well, yes, BUT - if Miller was guilty of such a crime, she wouldn't be in jail right now for contempt. She would have a clear 5th amendment right not to testify.
I hope Fitzgerald wraps up his investigation and the grand jury hands down indictments where indicated. Until then, speculate away, but let's clear up the thinking out there, shall we?
Right now, a couple of silly story lines are making the rounds -
A popular line from the right, echoed in much of the mainstream media, is that no crime has been committed, since Plame was not a protected secret operative. This makes no sense at all. Early in the investigation, Fitzgerald interviewed officials of the CIA. The first order of business of a competant prosecutor would be to determine whether or not Plame's identity was indeed legally protected. If not, Fitzgerald's investigation would have been done months ago. He's not done. Therefore, Plame's identity was indeed protected, and knowingly revealing it would indeed constitute a crime.
From the left, there's the growing speculation that Judy Miller might be guilty of more than just contempt. Billmon writes: "if Judy revealed Plame's status as a NOC to anyone not legally authorized to know it, she deserves a nice long stretch in a federal pen for espionage". Well, yes, BUT - if Miller was guilty of such a crime, she wouldn't be in jail right now for contempt. She would have a clear 5th amendment right not to testify.
I hope Fitzgerald wraps up his investigation and the grand jury hands down indictments where indicated. Until then, speculate away, but let's clear up the thinking out there, shall we?
# posted by Steve : 8:12 PM
