Obama will be tried for treason?

[KB5252]

I got an e-mail with a link. I don't really know what to make of it, maybe someone better informed in issues of law can help here?

POTUS has been officially charged with TREASON! - The Patriotic Resistance

 

[lawgator1]

I can explain.

These people are absolute nutjobs.

There.

 

[dantheman617]

I dislike Obama along with many others, but that website/people are about as credible as the National Enquier

 

[joevol320]

there are about 100 dem congressmen and senators that could tried for treason over hussein.

 

[MG1968]

I didn't click on the link, but resist.net sounds a little too Alex Jones-ish to me.

Obama needs to be called to task for the ABC News story regarding the two CIA contractors who were recently outed. That story makes the Valerie Plame non-scandal seem like a Paris Hilton went shopping story.

 

[lawgator1]

I didn't click on the link, but resist.net sounds a little too Alex Jones-ish to me.

Obama needs to be called to task for the ABC News story regarding the two CIA contractors who were recently outed. That story makes the Valerie Plame non-scandal seem like a Paris Hilton went shopping story.

What are you talking about?

 

[utvolpj]

What are you talking about?

this story

Waterboarding, Interrogations: The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists - ABC News

 

[lawgator1]

I didn't click on the link, but resist.net sounds a little too Alex Jones-ish to me.

Obama needs to be called to task for the ABC News story regarding the two CIA contractors who were recently outed. That story makes the Valerie Plame non-scandal seem like a Paris Hilton went shopping story.

this story

Waterboarding, Interrogations: The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists - ABC News

I can think of a lot of reasons that the situations are extremely dissimilar. But as a threshold matter, where is the statute at issue in the case of these two guys versus the one covering Plame?

 

[HawaiiVol]

So, which administration were the "Former US officials" that outed them from?

 

[rjd970]

I didn't click on the link, but resist.net sounds a little too Alex Jones-ish to me.

Obama needs to be called to task for the ABC News story regarding the two CIA contractors who were recently outed. That story makes the Valerie Plame non-scandal seem like a Paris Hilton went shopping story.

How was this worse than the Plame business?

 

[MG1968]

I can think of a lot of reasons that the situations are extremely dissimilar. But as a threshold matter, where is the statute at issue in the case of these two guys versus the one covering Plame?

which statute covered Plame? She was hardly a field spook when Richard Armitage confirmed to Bob Novak that she worked for the CIA.

 

[KB5252]

which statute covered Plame? She was hardly a field spook when Richard Armitage confirmed to Bob Novak that she worked for the CIA.

This is correct IIRC she was hardly clandestine and recommended her husband for a very high profile, very public assignment.

 

[lawgator1]

which statute covered Plame? She was hardly a field spook when Richard Armitage confirmed to Bob Novak that she worked for the CIA.

This is correct IIRC she was hardly clandestine and recommended her husband for a very high profile, very public assignment.

I wasn't aware that the statute differentiated people under deep enough cover for you to be bothered by it, versus what you call "hardly clandestine."

From what I read, she was undercover CIA. You might want to be dismissive of what she was doing, or think that her secret was fairly well known, at leats by some. But you cannot ignore her designation or just cry "no harm no foul" so as to ignore what Cheney and his minions did to shut her up and discredit her.

I am asking whether there is a similar statute that protects the identity of the psychologists who, as I read the article, just came up with the details of the technique, rather than were out in the field doing it (and even if they were, wondering what statute applies to their identities).

 

[BigPapaVol]

I wasn't aware that the statute differentiated people under deep enough cover for you to be bothered by it, versus what you call "hardly clandestine."

From what I read, she was undercover CIA. You might want to be dismissive of what she was doing, or think that her secret was fairly well known, at leats by some. But you cannot ignore her designation or just cry "no harm no foul" so as to ignore what Cheney and his minions did to shut her up and discredit her.

I am asking whether there is a similar statute that protects the identity of the psychologists who, as I read the article, just came up with the details of the technique, rather than were out in the field doing it (and even if they were, wondering what statute applies to their identities).

so, are you obfuscating the original premise or seriously arguing the merits of the Plame investigation and outcome? Either way, you're sunk.

 

[KB5252]

I wasn;t aware that the statute differentiated people under deep enough cover for you to be bothered by it, versus what you call "hardly clandestine."

From what I read, she was undercover CIA. You might want to be dismissive of what she was doing, or think that her secret was fairly well known, at leats by some. But you cannot ignore her designation or just cry "no harm no foul" so as to ignore what Cheney and his minions did to shut her up and discredit her.

I am asking whether there is a similar statute that protects the identity of the psychologists who, as I read the article, just came up with the details of the technique, rather than were out in the field doing it (and even fi they were, wondering what statute applies to their identities).

From what I understand there are some discrepancies about exactly how and by whom she was "outed". As far as i know there has been no official who was found guilty of "outing" her, even after a very intensive and politically charged investigation. It seems to me that when she lobbied for her husband to get this very publicized assignment any and every non US spook on the planet could have figured out who she was, if she was very important and had any value what so ever.

I think I also remember it coming to light that she was open with others about her work. Maybe this is not correct but I do remember hearing this being said, by whom I forget.

 

[rjd970]

I am asking whether there is a similar statute that protects the identity of the psychologists who, as I read the article, just came up with the details of the technique, rather than were out in the field doing it (and even if they were, wondering what statute applies to their identities).

This is what I am wondering, and how having the identities of these two psychologists known is worse than outing an actual operative, clandestine or not. I certainly think it is far from making the Plame stuff look like a "Paris Hilton shopping story".

In all honesty, I haven't read too much about it, all I am going on is what I know of the Plame story and what's written in the ABC story.

 

[emainvol]

there are about 100 dem congressmen and senators that could tried for treason over hussein.

If I didn't know any better, I would think you were going soft on us.

 

[emainvol]

I thought the liberals were supposed to be crybabies?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I wish all politicians would be tried for treason.

We need a good mass killing................ French Revolution style!

 

[volinbham]

Regarding the Plame case:

No statute was violated because of her status.
No evidence of a conspiracy to out her was found
No specific case she worked on was leaked

Still, it was careless and wrong to out Plame.

To the CIA contractors:

No statute was violated but these names are linked to specific activities which puts their lives in danger. The situation is political (torture debate) as was the Plame case. As a result it deserves at least as much investigation as the Plame case.

 

[lawgator1]

so, are you obfuscating the original premise or seriously arguing the merits of the Plame investigation and outcome? Either way, you're sunk.

No. I'm saying that if you want to compare the two, the first thing you do is understand what the rules are regarding each. The disclosure of Plame's identity was barred by federal law. I am asking whether the identities of these two guys was also protected by some sort of statute or administrative rule, what have you.

As an aside, I am not surprised that you are okay with what happened with Plame since she was unwilling to tow the company line and didn't deserve to be protected. Had Biden worked to disclose the identity of a CIA operative in Afghanistan because in Biden's view he was coming back with information contradicting the Obama administration's view of the world and needed to be ostracized before it became apparent, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

From what I understand there are some discrepancies about exactly how and by whom she was "outed". As far as i know there has been no official who was found guilty of "outing" her, even after a very intensive and politically charged investigation. It seems to me that when she lobbied for her husband to get this very publicized assignment any and every non US spook on the planet could have figured out who she was, if she was very important and had any value what so ever.

I think I also remember it coming to light that she was open with others about her work. Maybe this is not correct but I do remember hearing this being said, by whom I forget.

None of what you just said is relevant.

This is what I am wondering, and how having the identities of these two psychologists known is worse than outing an actual operative, clandestine or not. I certainly think it is far from making the Plame stuff look like a "Paris Hilton shopping story".

In all honesty, I haven't read too much about it, all I am going on is what I know of the Plame story and what's written in the ABC story.

I just want to understand the rules that apply to each.

 

[KB5252]

Regarding the Plame case:

No statute was violated because of her status.
No evidence of a conspiracy to out her was found
No specific case she worked on was leaked

Still, it was careless and wrong to out Plame.

To the CIA contractors:

No statute was violated but these names are linked to specific activities which puts their lives in danger. The situation is political (torture debate) as was the Plame case. As a result it deserves at least as much investigation as the Plame case.

This is just about where I stand on the subject.

It was wrong to out Plame. it was political but when the specifics were known the left still demanded that the justice department dig until they found anything that would stick to set an example. Now after all the shrill protests about how wrong this injustice was, they have turned around and done very close to the exact same thing.....the only difference is now there are very likely lives in danger.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

No. I'm saying that if you want to compare the two, the first thing you do is understand what the rules are regarding each. The disclosure of Plame's identity was barred by federal law. I am asking whether the identities of these two guys was also protected by some sort of statute or administrative rule, what have you.

As an aside, I am not surprised that you are okay with what happened with Plame since she was unwilling to tow the company line and didn't deserve to be protected. Had Biden worked to disclose the identity of a CIA operative in Afghanistan because in Biden's view he was coming back with information contradicting the Obama administration's view of the world and needed to be ostracized before it became apparent, you'd be screaming bloody murder.



None of what you just said is relevant.



I just want to understand the rules that apply to each.

lol:

 

[droski]

Regarding the Plame case:

No statute was violated because of her status.
No evidence of a conspiracy to out her was found
No specific case she worked on was leaked

Still, it was careless and wrong to out Plame.

To the CIA contractors:

No statute was violated but these names are linked to specific activities which puts their lives in danger. The situation is political (torture debate) as was the Plame case. As a result it deserves at least as much investigation as the Plame case.

everyone knew she worked for the cia. it's ridiculous to even use the term "outed."

 

[KB5252]

No. I'm saying that if you want to compare the two, the first thing you do is understand what the rules are regarding each. The disclosure of Plame's identity was barred by federal law. I am asking whether the identities of these two guys was also protected by some sort of statute or administrative rule, what have you.

As an aside, I am not surprised that you are okay with what happened with Plame since she was unwilling to tow the company line and didn't deserve to be protected. Had Biden worked to disclose the identity of a CIA operative in Afghanistan because in Biden's view he was coming back with information contradicting the Obama administration's view of the world and needed to be ostracized before it became apparent, you'd be screaming bloody murder.



None of what you just said is relevant.

Sure it is, who outed Plame?

I just want to understand the rules that apply to each.

To the bold statement: I'm not saying it was right, but there is some question about whom and when she was actually outed.

To bold and underlined:

I am almost sure that there are protections given to contractors who work on sensitive subjects such as this.