Kommentarer til: Plame – dommens dag (II)

Af: Jan Eskildsen

Jan Eskildsen — Tue, 01 May 2007 10:19:29 +0000

“…kun at det var velunderbyggede formodninger, “Den påstand savner dokumentation.

Af: Kimpo

Kimpo — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:51:21 +0000

Denne sag er sådan en model for den vestlige presses fallit. Den er grundigt behandlet af Punditokraterne gennem tiden, og det er simpelthen glimrende. Det koster jo tid at følge sager til dørs, men ved at have een gennemarbejdet sag, som med til bevis grænsende tydelighed demonstrerer pointen, står man altså stærkt.Så stor tak til Punditokraterne og mr. Law for indsatsen!

Af: David G

David G — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:39:21 +0000

Jeg har undladt at interessere mig i detaljer for Plame-sagen da den forekommer at være et ideologisk korstog mod Bush og Irak-krigen. Men at hun ikke skulle vide om hun var covert er dog en fræk påstand. Min viden er måske forældet, men jeg fik for år tilbage at vide at hvis man var ansat under Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) var ens identitet formelt hemmelig, mens ansatte i andre direktorater (såsom Analysis) godt måtte kendes-omtales-nævnes. Jeg kan huske at operationsfolkene havde en adskilt kantine i Langley hvor besøgende ikke måtte kigge ind.For at forebygge misforståelser skal det pointeres at det at være ansat under DDO ikke betyder at man har nogen som helst føling med det lægfolk forstår ved operationer, altså ude i marken. En kender af systemet fortalte mig mange år senere (vi er nu i 2002) at antallet af CIA-agenter der virkelig er ude i marken for at skade rigets fjender, som altså ikke har official cover som ambassadefunktionærer (og derfor er kendt af alle der har interesse i det, hvad enten de officielt er hemmelige eller ej), altså antallet af egentlige agenter med “Nonofficial Cover” kan tælles på to hænders, måske en hånds fingre.CIA har i årtier ikke været i stand til at gennemføre egentlige operationer. Det er i praksis et overbureaukratiseret, andenrangs udenrigsministerium. De ansattes højeste aspiration er at føle sig som diplomater.Det forklarer meget.

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:05:58 +0000

Fra Wall Street Journals OpinionJournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009806#kerfuffle ):”How secret was the identity of Valerie Plame, the blonde-bombshell top-secret superspy at the center of the kerfuffle of the century? So secret, she still doesn’t know it herself! The Associated Press reports on Plame’s star turn before a House committee Friday:Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA. But the word “covert” also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone’s identity secret. Critics of [Patrick] Fitzgerald’s investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that’s why nobody was charged with the leak. Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby’s trial said it was clear that Plame’s job was classified. However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame’s job was classified. Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said, “No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem.” Plame said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t know what her legal status was but said it shouldn’t have mattered to the officials who learned her identity. Plame also described the so-called leak as having been done “carelessly and recklessly,” which is a far cry from her husband’s insistence that it was a deliberate effort to harm her.”Hertil har OpinionJournal.com dd. denne kommentar:”Yesterday we noted that Kerfuffle Gal Valerie Plame testified she did not know whether she was a “covert” CIA agent as defined under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 2003, when her supposedly secret identity surfaced. Reader Jim Lucas makes a crucial point that we missed:The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a federal crime to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent whom one knows to be covert. So how can anyone be accused of knowingly revealing Valerie Plame’s identity as a covert agent if Valerie Plame herself didn’t know if she was covert according to the law?That pretty much settles the question, doesn’t it? If Plame’s status was secret even from herself, how could “leaker” Richard Armitage or “perjurer” Scooter Libby possibly have known?”Tja, det er jo en slags indvending …