Why aren't the Republicand that revealed the name of a CIA agent not on trial for treason?

Question

Silly me, I thought this was against the lawm to reveal the name of any one that is or was a CIA agent, whether they are official or non-official cover. Also, why are republicans being such blabber mouths and revealing a lot of secrets? Shouldn't they go om trial, who ever is 'leaking' this to the press?

So why is Lewis Libby on trial for lyeing about this in the first place? Some law had to be broken, for him to be on trial for not saying the truth about it in the first place. She was an agent. There is no such thing as a person being publikly known as a CIA agent, unless laws are broken by that person and they are prosecuted or they reveal it for themselves.

It is not just the NY Times. Also, the Washington times, which can hardly be considered a liberal newspaper, has published the same story, same words, and even made additions with their own slant, and they came to the same conclussions as the NY Times.

Answer 1

Well bring some facts to the case:

1. The law says it is a crime to knowingly reveal a covert operatives name for the purpose of harming national security.

2. Robert Novak wrote a column outing Valerie Plame.

3. Richard Armitage came foward and admitted he was the person to tell Novak about Plames CIA status, Novak confirmed this.

4. So the question is, did Richard Armitage, know this information was classified.

5. Patrick Fitzgerald the investigator does not believe Armitage violated the law.

6. As to treason, that charge is almost impossible to use, only one American has been charged with treason since 1952.

Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction.

In American history, only 40 people have been charged with Treason, only 7 convicted.

Answer 2

A better question is why aren't the editors of the NY times on trial for treason for releasing the information on the government bank monitoring program or the phone tapping program. Both of these leaks harm our effort to fight the war (which is treason).

The release of a CIA agents identity (which is still in dispute as to weather she was covert or not) who put herself on the cover of a magazine with her husband (that is keeping a low profile) is much less harmful to the country than the release of either of these programs details.

Answer 3

First, she was not a covert agent, so her identity/profession was NEVER a secret.

Second, it was not "leaked" per se, just noted in conversation. Third, the press that ran the story are never criticized - why not? Even if someone "leaked" the information to the press, no one would ever have found out about it if the press would not have printed the story.

Who is really irresponsible here? I think it is the media. They are always looking to report privileged information and they even do so to the detriment of the defense of our country. I think that is the treasonous activity.

Answer 4

Have you ever actually investigated this case past what the Treason Times (NY Times) prints? Let me give you some facts.

That "CIA Spy" was not in fact a spy at all. She was not under any kind of cover at all. In fact her "cover" was..... HER REAL NAME!! (can you hear the gasps???)

Her husband was sent on a trip to South Africa by HER, not the CIA, her. After which, he accused Bush of lying about Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger.

We now know exactly what we knew then, Saddam WAS trying to buy uranium from Niger,

Her husband lied about who sent him there, what he was doing there and who he was reporting to. Every time a new paper printed the story it got bigger and bigger and bigger. (You should've seen this fish I caught, it was like 30 lbs!!)

Then the Treason Times started to call him an Ambassador. Fact is he was an assistant to the ambassador to Kuwait, never a diplomat.

He then started saying he was sent there directly by the head of the CIA to investigate. He wasn't even allowed access to any official Nigerian government buildings.

He later said that he was told he was reporting to Dick Cheney. He was never told this and was never reporting to anyone more than his wife, who was just trying to get him out of the house for a weekend.

When the truth about his lies came out he was noted as saying "So."

The Treason Times has NEVER retracted their stories, never apologized for their mistakes in reporting and still continues to post the incorrect information on their websites, right next to all our Top Secret programs that are aimed at finding and killing terrorists. (I believe they're under the title "Hey Osama, check this stuff out!)

I say we demand that the Treason Times be put on trial for treason. If any single American gave the very same information to Al Qaeda that they print, they'd be hung already.

Libs make it so easy to prove their stupidity don’t they?

Answer 5

I never knew the Republicands were involved. To tell you the truth, I never heard of the Republicands.

Answer 6

It's not treason... learn a definition

And you thought wrong..... unless of course you know of a statute that I don't.... and if you do, please cite the US Code that specifically covers it.


Silly me, you're just talking out of your rear end again... aren't you.

Answer 7

Republics think they are above the law.