Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy: the Plame Affair
Valerie Plame Wilson, whose career Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted destroyed in a fit of pique, was finally allowed to testify before Congress on Friday. Some in the blogosphere are arguing that the outing of Plame Wilson was an impeachable offense.
Defenders of Rove and Cheney say that if they did not know that Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover operative, then they did not break the law by trying to out her. But first of all, as high officials of the US government, they had a responsibility to excercise prudence in this regard. The "reasonably prudent person" is always invoked in tort trials, why not in national security affairs? Can anyone argue that Rove and Cheney were being prudent in their actions? Shouldn't they have to be to stay in office?
Moreover, they did know that Plame Wilson was involved in counter-proliferation efforts, including against Iran. By leaking her name with the intent that journalists such as Judy Miller publish it, they were conveying information about a CIA operation to Iran. That is high treason, even if they did not know she was covert. All they had to know is that she was trying to impede Iran's nuclear program, and that the Iranians did not know that that was what she was doing. You can't make her public without also letting the Iranians know. Here is what the Constitution says:
Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It aided and comforted Iran to know that Valerie Plame Wilson and her dummy CIA corporation, Brewster Jennings & Associates, had been engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it. Bush put Iran in the Axis of Evil, thus declaring it an enemy of the US.
Therefore, Rove and Cheney (and maybe Bush himself) gave aid and comfort to an enemy of these United States by a deliberate act of outing a CIA operative who was not known to Iran and whose cover and activities had not been.
That's treason. That warrants impeachment.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/17/2007 01:29:00 AM
|
Facebook
12 Comments:
"Therefore, Rove and Cheney (and maybe Bush himself) gave aid and comfort to an enemy of these United States by a deliberate act of outing a CIA operative who was not known to Iran and whose cover and activities had not been.
That's treason. That warrants impeachment."
No, no, no. It's not treason because the Decider said so.
Remember, he is the leader of the free world.
Absolutely, right on, concise and succinct!
The only "defense" these bozos have is that they were working for a President who is a Unitary Executive and a Commander in Chief, that is a dictator and emperor.
Unfortunately, the concept of the "reasonable person" has devolved over the last few years (and in the history of the human...it is a miniscule period). War is the inevitable consequence of prejudice. Not to mention, the penultimate of the denial...of death.
What is ... sad...is that the culture of our society understands not the consequences of the denial of the only real structure of reality...which is death.
And, so the notion of a war of "cultures" becomes not the abstract intellect's attempt to survive...but a devolution to ideology.
"Defenders of Rove and Cheney say that if they did not know that Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover operative, then they did not break the law by trying to out her."
I suppose that the person who has a couple too many to drink after having not gotten enough sleep and eaten too little might not know that s/he would be too impaired to drive. Not knowing this, s/he should be let loose for not being aware of how pie-eyed s/he was.
Needless to say, the person who is in charge (of the gov't or one's self) is still responsible for wrong-doing regardless of some ignorance or negligence about the law. Perhaps it is the rule among the elites who are somehow put above normal society to draw blanks when confronted with everyday, mundane, average problems and issues. Their excuse is the very rising above the routine matters of life, excluding them from a certain amount of common sense (like not wearing holey socks to a mosque). Having one's head in the clouds while sitting atop the impregnable ivory tower is sufficient rationale for not being able to accurately gauge the atmosphere and sensibilities of those on or nearer to the ground.
Those who feed on a steady diet of hubris and narcissism tend to consider their positions to be exempt from the usual limitations placed on the rest of the people. If anything, those who have accepted responsibility for law, order, and security issues should be held MORE accountable than the regular 'Joes' and 'Josephines' who might not have as much experience and the resources to learn and know the significance of various issues. The Republicans and their psychophants tried this rationale with BillJeff Blythe IV Clinton during the 'Lewinsky Affair,' pointing out that his 'perjury' was of paramount importance given he was the 'chief law enforcement officer' of the United States. Not mentioning that he (and later Condit) was the target of a honey-trap, their silence allowed the perpetrators to go unidentified and unprosecuted if only to try to hammer BillJeff.
It might be argued that BJ let things go just to see the extent of the actions against him. Similarly, 'outing' Mz Plame-Wilson might have allowed the proliferators to feel a sense of ease, making them more likely to be identified. Both of these scenarioes go against conventional wisdom, except perhaps in a purely political sense simply because the system should be prepared to deal not only with honey-traps but knookleur merchants and traffickers alike and at least as well.
Mz Plame-Wildon was a public (although kept private) servant who committed her life to the spook business, something that has some inherent dangers associated with it. Periodically, some people have to be sacrificed (unwillingly or unknowingly) in order to make other plans and operations work. Distracting the adversaries through feints and swoons could be one reason for the hoopla and whoopdo. Just like N'Ahlins and the broken levees, one intentional weak spot will allow -- but forcibly -- the flaw flow to occur, enabling other plans to be effected for some obscure reason(s). Allowing some incident to occur, intentionally or coincidentally, at any level at any time or place also enables the empowered to do nifty things like ram a 'USAPATRIOT Act' down the peoples' throats. Leaving your doors unlocked will eventually result in your car being stolen or your domicile being burgled, odds are. Of course, the stealing of the items might be beneficial in that one gets new things once the insurance company settlement comes, but ...
The hidden agendas do not 'excuse' the behaviours of the officials and their more obvious plots, scams, and schemes. As in the case of Iraq, the situation was handled not so much 'badly' but in an amateurish fashion, in such a way as we've seen so often with campfires that get away from the outdoorsmen, leading to worse than expected conflagrations that take on lives of their own, creating their own paths and destinies, with their own winds and energies raging out of control.
Iraq, again, is another case as was Katrina as is the lawyer illegalities as is many another thing attempted in these radicals' times. But, once more, when the elites are not directly affected, able to fly over devastation or exclude their own from serving their own political ends (as in, the troops' shortages could be resolved if only the operations' staunch supporters would donate their military-age sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, whohaveyou) or getting kickbacks from the sole-source contractors tasked to create unrest and mayhem in the Middle East and the Gulf Coast. Everyone's happy as long as 'green' means payback or payoff in moolah, and even that is fading on the newer issued bills!
Gangsterism is about seeing how far the laws can be stretched before they break and there is a snap-back (like a rubber band). In the state of the government, laws are enacted for the people, but usually for only some of them, the ones who can use the benefits derived therefrom. Taxes, shelters, allowances, grants, and other advantages directly affect the bottom lines of the businessmen's bank accounts, establishing a very real sort of class division between those who work and those, like the Paris Hiltons, who are famous for not having to ever work. Equality of equity is something that is a myth in which many believe and to which they aspire, kinda like fame and everlasting life in the whereverafter. Sucking up to the mobsters by buying their beer might have some tangible benefits, like not losing one's livelihood or life.
Capone was known to have been 'compassionate' with his soup kitchens, diverting attention away from his more insidious plans such as delivering 'Valentines,' 'conservative' in the degree to which he made his supporters healthy and his enemies suffer. To lose one's Queen is seen as a coup for the opponent, unless the opposition is to be checkmated soon thereafter. Mz Plame-Wilson may have been the 'compassionate conservatives' diverting a loss, one that has escaped notice in hopes that the subsequent moves would effect an end-game and win.
If Iraq then Iran submitting was the intended end-game, the gambit's sacrifice has not achieved much more than a stalemate. The best that can come out of the situations as they exist right now is a draw, perhaps the challenge to be decided in future match games. However, the longer the games continue, the easier it is for the adversaries to learn the strategies and the strength of will of the Americans and their 'better' players. Having to regroup and attempt new tactics unexpectedly contributes to sloppy play and waning support, much the same as not only gunning down too many people in cold blood but missing the main objective as well. A lack of good planning on the part of the leadership usually mandates an emergency on the part of the led until, of course, there is a mutiny or backlash and a demand for changes, either in methods and policies or all the way to and through the leadership.
Playing games against too many challengers and with too few clear options is a certain way to undercut not only one's ability but the confidence of the supporters. When the public is aroused, the chances for a continued status quo are reduced should the arousal not be favourable. Once more, a steady diet of hubris and self-centredness is certain to be debilitating in that one winds up being self-consuming, something resembling an implosion. It is at this point that we find the Buscists, doling out slop to the masses while delivering bloody 'Valentines' to foreigners, revelling in their cleverness, admiring themselves and their reflections way up yonder, in the cloud-shrouded tower. The cloudy, deranged minds indicate clear, systematic deterioriation.
Being detached from the events doesn't protect them from being catch'd in their deviance. On the contrary, the higher one is, the more perilous the fall. A lack of preparation on the leaders' parts may just be their own tough luck, delivering themselves as their own bloody 'Valentine!'
Dear Professor Cole, I am pleased to make one of the first comments on this well-reasoned critique of Mssr's Cheney, Rove and Bush. As GHWB stated, this is a treasonous and despicable act of disloyalty on their part. We have dropped a long way from our ideals to allow this pandering to fear and disinformation without recourse. I note that Rep. Waxman opened his hearing yeasterday with the GHWB quote. Thank you for your succinct and accurate analysis, as usual.
Henry Bennett
"It aided and comforted Iran to know that Valerie Plame Wilson and her dummy CIA corporation, Brewster Jennings & Associates, had been engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it."
Well, I doubt it was any comfort, and I can't see from Juan Cole's argument alone that it was any aid. Surely Iran already knew somebody in the CIA was engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it, since counter-proliferation is our declared aim. How would it help to know the name of one of the agents, unless this agent was active in recruiting informants or doing undercover work? That may have been the case with Plame, but it is hard to prove, since she cannot talk about her activities. Juan Cole's attempt to short circuit the question of what was compromised when Plame was compromised is unconvincing. I don't think we should emulate the right wing's promiscuity in throwing about terms like 'treason.'
It is time for the people of this country to stand up and demand impeachment. On April 28, they will have a historic opportunity to do just that. Find out more:
A28 Nationwide Protests for Impeachment
I asked Floyd Abrams whether the leaking of Valerie Plame's name and status as a covert operative were impeachable offenses. He was of the opinion it did not rise to that standard.
It just seems inconcievable that Cheney and anyone else involved in Plamegate could be ignorant of her work in the CIA, or at least that she is covert.
These people have total access to the CIA, and at the highest levels. They interact on a continuos basis. The CIA works for the administration, so the notion that Cheney/Libby wouldn't have the brains to pick up the secure phone, call the agency and ask a couple of questions about Plame's status before starting their smear just doesn't make sense.
Just a reminder:
It is not neccessary to use an existing term like "covert" in the specific sense a given law defines it for the legal purposes of that law. Indeed, if one means to say "X" per a given law, she says "I was not an 'X' per the definition of yadda law...." Those definitions are considered special purpose for the sake of that law (you know, "herein 'an alcoholic beverage' is defined as any potable beverage containing at least 1% ethanol V/V...) whereas common usage or other specialized communities may use the phrase to cover somewhat different ground. Hence, critics cannot say Plame was dishonest from using "covert" in a sense different from the law about exposing such agents, if she did.
Also, I am sick of all the whining that since no law was broken (even if true), it is no big deal. Outing Plame damaged her very important WMD (!) work, and that is bad enough.
Here's another reminder, re Scooter Libby: perjury has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed. If you see a dead body in your neighbor's yard and lie about it to the court to protect him, and it turns out it was just a schmuck who walked in their and died of a heart attack, well, you committed perjury. We need to keep the integrity of the justice system in any case (and remember of course how important perjury was deemed, when Clinton was implicated...)
"It aided and comforted Iran to know that Valerie Plame Wilson and her dummy CIA corporation, Brewster Jennings & Associates, had been engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it."
Does the Constitution help determine who is an Enemy of the United States, short of a formal declaration of war? Or does the Constitution allow right-wing speechwriters and politicians to make that determination?
Serious question:
Can a president be impeached for general incompetence?
(Like the way they can have votes of no-confidence in Canada or England?)
If that's the case, Bush is clearly impeachable. I think the treason charge is problematic because the government will never tell us exactly how much Plame's blown cover helped the Iranians.
Post a Comment
<< Home