On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, asserting that Plame's status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information and requesting a federal investigation. Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
2007-07-03 17:46:02 · 5 answers · asked by Dangerous 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't know why the neo-cons claim no laws were broken. I think it is because they know Libby was acting on orders from Bush and Cheney, so that makes it not a crime in their eyes. Libby will be pardoned in 1 1/2 years.
2007-07-03 17:52:12 · answer #1 · answered by arejokerswild 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The key word in your question is "knowingly". The prosecutor decided no laws were broken. The person who wrote the law says Plame did not meet the definition of covert. If there was an intentional leak of Plame's name, then why wasn't the leaker charged?
And how can you be a covert agent if you're working 9 to 5 at CIA headquarters? Plame was walking in and out of the CIA front door five days a week. So much for covert undercover.
2007-07-04 01:00:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wikipedia? You offer that as a credible source? Ok, I'll stop laughing now. If there were a crime how come Patrick Fitzgerald didn't prosecute Richard Armitage, the guy who did it in the first place and Fitz knew about?
2007-07-04 00:51:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just procedure, if they really want to know who leaked Plame's status they should have asked her husband. Everyone who knew him knew his wife worked at langley.
2007-07-04 00:50:29 · answer #4 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They wanted to start a witch hunt.
2007-07-04 00:58:53 · answer #5 · answered by Quetzal 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋