Hmmm.

Seen in a Capitol Hill restroom ...

"For a gud time and nucklear weapons profilieration call Valerie at ..."

Hehe. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

For my next trick, perhaps I’ll try to rationalize how Karl Rove could have revealed Valerie Plame’s identity with absolutely no malice whatsoever, no criminal intent, and no law broken.

Easy. Through the power of song. He needed to rhyme with flame (the song was about Jeff Gannon).

;)

Except that this would be no trick as everyone in their neighborhood knew about it. Besides she has it on her business cards.

Sure, she could be against abortion and support Roe, either because, per your point, she thought the court had made the right ruling back in 73 or because, although she may feel the court erred in Roe, she feels Roe is settled law, a 30+ year precedent and should thus not be overturned.

"Easy. Through the power of song. He needed to rhyme with flame (the song was about Jeff Gannon)."

*laughs*

Jay said:

"According to the supporters of abortion rights, Roe V. Wade was a “good” decision, founded on Constitutional principles. Opponents say it isn’t, and should be overturned."

According to probably all "pro-choice" lawyers I know (including me), the reasoning in Roe v. Wade was abysmal. It stands as one of the most illogical, poorly reasoned, incoherent opinions of all time. And, this comes from people who favor the result.

"But what if one thought that while abortion was wrong, the Court had acted appropriately? What to do then?"

I'd like to meet that person--does he/she exist?

"There’s really only one way to overturn a Supreme Court decision on a Constitutional issue, and that’s by amending the Constitution. And that’s what Miers said she supported."

Huh? What about the Supreme Court overruling itself? Check out what Lawrence did to Bower or Brown v. Board of Ed. did to Plessy v. Furgeson. Or....

Unless Miers is a complete idiot, I doubt she favors the Court's handling of Roe v. Wade--regardless of her views on abortion. Therefore, if she is driven by some anti-abortion sentiment, whether through her "born again" status or whatever, I suspect she'll be looking for rationales to overrule Roe. If, however, she's driven more by principles of judicial restraint, fairness and neutrality rather than personal religious bias, I doubt she'll be looking for reasons to unravel established precedent in the absence of some manifest injustice.

The bottom line on Miers is, "who knows?"

I didn't phrase something clearly above. When I said I'm a "pro-choice lawyer" I did not mean to suggest I am a legal advocate for abortion rights. What I meant, is that I am a lawyer who slouches in favor of "choice" (but who is standing straighter with age).

Eh - you're incorrect. You don't need a Constitutional amendment to overturn a SCOTUS decision, you need a majority of Justices who agree to do so.

My personal belief is that you are also wrong about Miers not being willing to overturn abortion rights. I grew up in Texas with the Republivangelical crowd. She'll overturn it in two seconds if she gets the chance. I've written about this at my blog, if anyone wants to hear more from me.

I don't believe one can take seriously her answers to that questionaire. She was a politician trying to garner votes.

However, I'm not so foolish as to believe that she, or any other SCOTUS nominee, is above the political fray.

That's just not the world we live in anymore.

If you follow this link to a WaPo story, you'll see how Rove could have leaked the name without committing a crime (written by the woman who wrote the Agent Identification Protection Act).

http://209.35.180.29/misc/plame.html

I understand the feeling behind the comment to not believe a politician running for office. However, if she was lying then, is she also lying now? How are we to decide when we should believe her? If she will lie just to get a City Council job, then how much more will she lie to get a SCOTUS appointment?

No, I believe you have to take it seriously and hold her feet to the fire to explain exactly what she meant. Her answers on the questionaire about abortion would not be inconsistent with upholding the Texas law that was ruled unconstitutional by Roe v. Wade. Her answer that she believes gays should have civil rights could well be limited to voting and property rights. You have to understand her answers through the political culture at the time they were given - not by what the situation is now or what we'd like it to be.

Personally, I have little to say about whether or not Rove or Libby or whoever leaked Valerie Plame's name broke the law. That's what the grand jury is for and the people handling it are likely very qualified to do so.

However, it is extremely unethical for someone to reveal a person's classified position simply to teach political opponents a lesson. I think you'll have a very hard time finding anyone who has written an article that will legitimately claim differently.

XT

"However, it is extremely unethical for someone to reveal a person's classified position simply to teach political opponents a lesson. I think you'll have a very hard time finding anyone who has written an article that will legitimately claim differently."

I agree with that. But it begs the question: Did she hold a classified position at any relevant time? Many say her covert work had been over for many years, and her analyst job thereafter was common knowledge. There's also the issue of whether her identity was really revealed. There are many other unanswered questions here.

The Constitutional Amendment Miers said she'd support is far more radical than merely overturning Roe v. Wade. Most Constitutional scholars - and both Scalia and Thomas - believe that the Constitution reserves all questions on abortion to the states. Thus, to overturn ROe v. Wade, a Constitutional Amendment need only go so far as to clarify that the Constitution does not contain any general right of "privacy" and that such non-existent "privacy" right surely does not encompass any right to have an abortion.

With such a limited Roe-repealing Constitutional Amendment, all questions of abortion are reserved to the states. Some states will make certain abortions illegal, some will keep the current abortion-on-demand laws in place.

Miers supported not simply the repeal of Roe v. Wade, but an outright national ban on all abortions via Constitutional Amendment except those necessary to save the life of the mother (no rape or incest exceptions either). This is quite radical and something I'm not sure I would support.

What can we divine of Miers' future vote on whether to uphold Roe v. Wade from this one word answer to a political questionaire from a pro-life group from which Miers was panning for votes? Your guess is as good as mine.

"Her job was common knowledge"?

Did you know about it? I hardly think so. Whether she was currently assigned or not may have bearing on the legal aspect, but it has none on the ethical aspect. The fact is that you simply cannot move up into management at the CIA after your name has been published in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

There is absolutely no way you can claim that Plame's identity was not given to the press in an attempt to discredit her husband's report. THAT is unethical. The damage to national security and the exact legality of the issue, as I stated, is not for me to say and I have no way to determine exactly one way or the other. However, you simply cannot claim to have any ethical reason for the revelation - nor have I seen one from anywhere.

XT

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe. You simply need a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court to rule that the right to privacy does not include the right to abortion. There is no codified right to privacy, there is no hint of it in the Constitution. It was granted through a series of SCOTUS decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.

XT

"There is absolutely no way you can claim that Plame's identity was not given to the press in an attempt to discredit her husband's report."

Huh? We don't even know who the first "leak" was--so how can motive be attributed? Nor do we know for sure whether Libby or Rove knew her status--or even her name. They knew "Wilson's wife" arranged for his boondoggle, but there is no evidence they knew more. She had not worked covertly for more than five years, and people in her sphere reportedly knew what she was doing behind the desk.

If everything you say is correct, I agree with you. But we don't know you're correct yet. Just sayin'.

Okay, so let us assume that Plame did recommend her husband simply because she disliked the current admininstration. Let us further assume he did intentional misrepresent the mission then came back and lied to make the administration look bad. What course should the White House have taken? How do you control the damage without exposing Plame? I would like a realistic answer also, given the apparent hostility and complicity from a signigicant portion of the press and CIA.

"There is no codified right to privacy, there is no hint of it in the Constitution. It was granted through a series of SCOTUS decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade."

Wrong. Rights to privacy are expressly codified in U.S. Statutes and probably all state statutes. Codification refers to statutory laws and not constitutional provisions or case law. Perhaps it was just your terminology that was off. But surely you don't disagree that U.S. law protects your privacy rights to medical records, tax matters, etc. That's a no-brainer.

As for the "constitutional right to privacy," I think most "strict constructionists" are being disingenuous. I think it is absolutely clear that a "right to privacy" is subsumed by the "liberties" protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments--in fact it was probably so obvious to the framers that they felt it unnecessary to ennumerate. Give me 15 minutes in a room with you, and you'll all be nodding in agreement.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm NOT saying a right to abortion was intended by the framers. I think Griswold was sound, but Roe was not. I also think most detractors of Roe are missing the boat by attacking on that privacy front.

In my opinion, the weaknesses in Roe are (1) in its reliance on junk science to deliniate the moment in the gestational life of a fetus (yes, I said life) at which it becomes a human being, and (2) the proclamation that at some magical point the state's interest in protecting that fetus is overridden by the mother's rights to autonomy over her body. Those portions of the opinion are incoherent.

B Moe, was that to me?

Since the CIA report based on the debriefing of Wilson corroborated the claims that Iraq sought yellowcake from Niger, I suspect there was little to do in terms of damage control. Wouldn't it be sufficient to point out the discrepancies between the report and Wilson's dishonest op-ed? Or, perhaps addressing his unsuitability for the role based on lack of relevant experience? I can't see how the nepotism charge adds that much. So why expose a covert agent? (NOT saying Plame was either covert or exposed by the Whitehouse--until we know more).

What you are "just sayin" is trying to get back around to the legal aspect.

We have three journalists who have named specific people in the Bush Administration who spoke with them, connecting Valerie Plame as Wilson's wife and casting doubt on his report as being politically motivated.

Robert Novak printed "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger..." 14July2003

This, despite being told on July 10-11, 2003 by Bill Harlow (CIA spokesman) "in the strongest terms" he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. Harlow has also testified that he has did not tell Novak her name - BECAUSE IT WAS CLASSIFIED.

17July2003 Matt Cooper prints "A War on Wilson" in which he also says that high level Bush officials are mounting a covert slime campaign.

I think the testimony of every journalist involved, other than Judith Miller (who has zero credibility), should indicate that it was, in fact, the Bush Administration (though we don't know for certain WHO in the Administration) released her name for political purposes.

THAT cannot be defended on ethical grounds in any way - and THAT is the point that every Bush apologist continues to dodge and evade and obfuscate.

XT

B Moe:

What could they have done?

Simple. They could have introduced another competing expert to examine the documents and make a public report.

THAT is the way political disagreements are normally handled.

XT

Mark:

On the "right to privacy" - there are some limited types of privacy that are codified. I thought we were talking about abortion, though, not tax laws. Nice dodge.

I personally do believe that there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. What other way is there to understand the basis for a right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

However, that right is not explicit in the Constitution. Since it isn't explicit, it is only found in judical opinion and legal cases.

I'd also disagree that Roe is incoherent. It sets three distinct periods of pregnancy - which was based on the best science available at the time.

XT

"Since the CIA report based on the debriefing of Wilson corroborated the claims that Iraq sought yellowcake from Niger,"

Ah, so you have seen the report youself? No, I didn't think so.

It's awfully funny that you are totally unwilling to admit Plame's identy should not have been revealed, yet you are so wonderfully willing to accept that Wilson misrepresented the facts. I'll admit that I don't have every single thing written on this at my fingertips, but you're going to have to provide a source for a charge like that.

XT

"perhaps addressing his unsuitability for the role based on lack of relevant experience?"

Yeah, you need to turn off Fox News for a bit.

From 1988-91 he was the ambassador to Iraq. From 1992-5, he was the ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe. From 1995-7, he was the political advisor to the Commander-in-Chief United States Armed Forces, Europe. From 1997-8, he was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.

This guy knew African politics backwards and forwards. This is very unlike, say, Mike Brown who used to observe horse shows before he was put in charge of FEMA.

XT

Xpat:

No dodge meant--I wasn't sure you meant to say what you said. You were talking privacy in that portion, not abortion, and your statement was wrong. Apparently you knew what you were talking about and merely mispoke.

As for the incoherence of Roe, I find the non-sequiturs and blatant judicial activism in the portions I mentioned in my previous post. The activism, in my opinion, was NOT in finding rights to privacy. I don't think the Roe court even needed to pin this on privacy, as they would have done just as well using the clear "liberty" language of the constitution.

Many liberties protected by the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th, and I'm talking about the non-controversial ones probably everyone agrees with, would not be possible without a recognition of privacy. I think it's pretty clear that the "p" word needn't be articulated.

XP-

Holy shit, you know EVERYTHING, don't you?

1. Everything you know about the Plame case was leaked, and likely cherry picked. Like I said, if you're right on the facts, I agree with you. But I doubt any of us know enough to form an opinion yet.

2. Yes, I've seen the report. Yes, he understood that the Saddam regime sought yellowcake, but was unsuccessful. Why don't you know that? Yes, he did misrepresent his findings in his op-ed.

3. I don't watch FOX, thank you very much. Glad you think you know me so well.

4. Who said anything about Mike Brown? The fact is, Wilson had no experience with WMD or nuclear technology and may have not been the best choice for the job.

Notice that I offered NO justification for the administration's actions, in case what you believe about the "leak" is true.

Glad you've got it all figured out. Go ahead, show your true colors by flaming the guy who agreed with you about the moral and ethical implications of what you allege. Forgive me for being cautious and not rushing to hang the administration before the prosecutor is even ready to seek indictments--because we don't have the facts yet.

Moron.

Wow, that was a helluva couple segues there Xpat. Fox news to Fema, very smooth. You missed Karl Rove and the Neocon Koolaid, though, so imma have to wait for someone a little better to debate.

Ah, typical. When you can't handle the truth, try spewing hatred.

1. Everything I know about the case I learned as a matter of public record. If you don't know what I stated, then it is you who are cherry-picking. If you agree with me in principle, then you have to agree with me in reality.

2. Provide me with a link to the report and I'll be happy to rescind my remarks on that point. Until then, I have to believe you are only going on what has been "leaked" as well.

3. "If it sounds like a duck..." You quack the same way Fox News does. If it hurt, then it isn't my fault.

4. Wilson WAS qualified - unless you actually are trying to say that the Commander-in-Chief US Forces Europe has no information at all about nuclear weapons. You may want to actually think about that a bit.

As far as flaming is concerned, I never attacked you directly but addressed your comments - which is much more than I can say for you.

XT

It's okay, B Moe, if you can't handle the truth, you can't handle the truth.

You asked a question and I answered it. I guess you didn't like hearing that the Bush Administration could have handled this honorably and chose not to do so.

XT

"Ah, typical. When you can't handle the truth, try spewing hatred."

You claim to know the truth? That's my problem, none of us do.

And where did I spew hatred? I simply, and honestly, commented on your intellectual capacity as demonstrated by your writing.

"Everything I know about the case I learned as a matter of public record."

No, everything you "know" was leaked to the press by someone with an agenda (on both sides). There is a difference; don't confuse the two.

If you can use Google, you'll easily find the CIA report. Since you've already demonstrated your willingness to make up your mind in the absence of anything resembling the whole story, I doubt you'll make the effort.

Until Fitzgerald comes forward with some information or an indictment, I'm reserving judgment. Call me a duck or a FOX follower or Bush sympathizer or whatever thing you deem undesirable, but none of that is based on any position I've articulated, nor based on reality. To suggest otherwise without supporting evidence is the act of a moron. If the shoe fits, that's not the result of hatred.

XT said:

"I'd also disagree that Roe is incoherent. It sets three distinct periods of pregnancy - which was based on the best science available at the time."

I suggest you look up "coherent" in the dictionary. Then read the opinion. Never mind, that would be as worthwhile as having my nine-year-old do it.

Hey Mark:

Merriam Websters says that "Incoherent" means "lacking clarity or intelligibility". That is exactly what I dispute with you.

Better go find a nine year old.

I claimed my statements were based on public records - which, in case you don't understand the term, include published newspaper accounts. Everyone one of the reports is singing the same tune (except Judith Miller, who claims she just doesn't remember anything). You'll have to excuse me for taking that as corroborating evidence.

The truth is that we don't know which person actually leaked her name, but we do know it was leaked and we do know that it was used to attack the credibility of Wilson's report.

Your "honesty" leaves much to be desired in terms of actually reflecting reality. You can't even admit that much, though, so I don't have high hopes for anything else.

Taking your advice, I did google the report. Interestingly enough, the Conclusions (I must admit I didn't read all 521 pages of it yet) continue to hold up the story that the reports of Iraq trying to get uranium were faked. Conclusion 19 says: "Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa."

Uh, so Mr. Brilliant, please explain how that "corroborated the claims that Iraq sought yellowcake from Niger".

So, let's recap.

You claim Wilson actually corroborated the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium.

The fact is - he didn't. In fact, he corroborated exactly what his op-ed said - that the Administration was duped by fake documents.

I claim that, of the three reporters involved, two have stated that Administration officials connected the name "Valerie Plame" as Joe Wilson's wife and tried to discredit his report based on their relationship.

You claim - you can't know that, it was only leaked. It can't be substantiated.

The fact is that both Novak and Cooper have published everything I've attributed to them. Their stories corroborate each other.

Fitzgerald is not there to rule on any ethical question, he's a lawyer. He's there to investigate the legality of what happened. You have know that there are many things in this world that are legal, but still not ethical (such as Bill Clinton cheating on his wife).

Again, my point is that whether or not laws were broken has to wait for Fitzgerald and the grand jury to finish. However, there is enough that has been made public record by all sides to indicate that what happened was unethical and an abuse of power.

Now, I suggest you put aside your anger and actually go through what I've said. I've not claimed one person or another responsible for the leak, only that there was a leak (how else would her name have been made public?) and that it was used to try and discredit a political opponent.

Those are the facts of the matter. Think what you will of me, but if you have a problem with reality, then it isn't me that has thinking problems.

Take care, I'm off to bed.

XT