« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | The NHS is a Disaster Zone »

ACLU and Jihadi Defense Attorneys Expose Under Cover CIA Operatives to the Enemy

This makes the whole Valerie Plame thing seem like a damn tea party. ACLU and attorneys defending jihadis who plotted to bring down our country on 9/11 took secret photos of CIA operatives, some in front of their homes, so those jihadis currently being held at Gitmo could identify them. Plame hadn't been in the field for over five years. The CIA operatives that the ACLU and the defense attorneys exposed to the enemy were and still are under cover as we speak. Where's the freaking outrage now? From the Washington Post:

The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.

If detainees at the U.S. military prison in Cuba are tried, either in federal court or by a military commission, defense lawyers are expected to attempt to call CIA personnel to testify.

The photos were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to support military counsel at Guantanamo Bay, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the inquiry. It was unclear whether the Justice Department is also examining those organizations.

Both groups have long said that they will zealously investigate the CIA's interrogation program at "black sites" worldwide as part of the defense of their clients. But government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.

The left jumped up and down and got their panties in a bunch because they said exposing Valerie Plame was treason. Fine. Let's accept that premise. That means we zealously investigate those attorneys from the John Adams Project and the ACLU (they said they love zealous investigations) who exposed these under cover agents, prosecute those attorneys, make sure they are convicted, and then hang them.

Ed Morrissey:

I have long argued that the insistence of treating captured terrorists as civil criminals would lead to this kind of scenario. It puts foreign terrorists at war with the US in the same legal status as a bank robber and threatens the intelligence processes (and now personnel) that exist to defeat America's enemies. The defense attorneys want to pull intel assets off line and into court, where their usefulness in covert operations will come to a screeching halt. That will leave the US more exposed and more vulnerable to the terrorist networks that we have been trying to dismantle and destroy after 9/11.

This proves the point.

John Stephenson at Stop the ACLU:

We learned a long time ago the ACLU didn't truly believe in the right to privacy except when it was convenient for its agenda. When it was convenient for fundraising, privacy went out the window. Now we learn that as long as it fits the agenda of endangering America, the ACLU's faux defense of privacy is exposed again. Revealed is hypocrisy.

John also notes this little nugget of hypocrisy:

Meanwhile, the ACLU ignore Obama's healthcare plan that would gather bank account information on everyone taking part.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36571.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ACLU and Jihadi Defense Attorneys Expose Under Cover CIA Operatives to the Enemy:

» Stop The ACLU linked with ACLU Hypocrisy on Privacy Alert

Comments (33)

Agreed. If true they shoul... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Agreed. If true they should be tried. If convicted, hanged as traitors.

In the Plame incident they knew who made the leak and they never prosecuted him because she was not a covert agent so no crime was committed.

Explaining away this load o... (Below threshold)
Emerson:

Explaining away this load of hypocrisy will deplete the left's nearly bottomless pit of Nuance.

My God, the hate just pours... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

My God, the hate just pours out of this woman:

The left jumped up and down and got their panties in a bunch because they said exposing Valerie Plame was treason. Fine. Let's accept that premise. That means we zealously investigate those attorneys from the John Adams Project and the ACLU (they said they love zealous investigations) who exposed these under cover agents, prosecute those attorneys, make sure they are convicted, and then hang them.

Our government, specifically the Office of the Vice-President, exposed Valerie Plame. It was treason, and the responsible parties in all cases of treason should be tried and if convicted punished according the to the law.

"...make sure they are convicted"...?

How about we let a judge and jury decide if they are guilty first?

"...and then hang them."

Get psychiatric help, Ms. Priestap. Your rage and hatred is spilling out and you seriously need medical help.

Vic

Its so fun having so many c... (Below threshold)
914:

Its so fun having so many communist's in a free Country. ACLU = American Communist Liberties Union.

Um, VicDick Armita... (Below threshold)
914:

Um, Vic

Dick Armitage revealed Valerie's non agent name to Novak as I recall.

Get a life.

"How about we let a judge a... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"How about we let a judge and jury decide if they are guilty first?"

IIRC Vic, your friends on the left mentioned nothing about "a judge and jury". All we heard was "Carl Rove being 'frog marched' out of the White House". A lot of "GUILTY!" was thrown about before an investigation was even begun.

When did you (and I assume the left) suddenly become concerned about a 'judge and jury'? Just more of that Democratic "nuance"?

There are other ways to ID ... (Below threshold)
James H:

There are other ways to ID potential witnesses. Did the defense attorneys exhaust those avenues first?

There is NO comparison betw... (Below threshold)

There is NO comparison between this an Valerie Plame. Plame had been flying a desk for over 5 years, and was well and truly OUTED by Aldrich Ames years before. Furthermore, at the time that Dick Armitage RE-outed her the original enemy that MIGHT have endangered her, the USSR, no longer existed!
The enemy that would seek revenge against THESE agents, alQueda, is very much still in existance!!

The ACLU remains the best friend alQueda has in this country!!

Aisle 3: Hydrophobic spew... (Below threshold)
epador:

Aisle 3: Hydrophobic spew splattered about. Recommend toxic spill gear and notify the Animal Control. Anyone attempting to respond had better be up on their Rabies Series. I think its time for quarantine or Olaf's Hammer.

Regarding the Post:<p... (Below threshold)
epador:

Regarding the Post:

When the investigation is completed and judgement announced, it will be interesting indeed to see if we have a Justice Department or a "Just-Us" Department.

If they are guilty, they'll more likely get a beer summit than a noose, though its possible the new execution method for Federal capital offenses may be getting run over by a bus.

Holder? Holder? Eric Holde... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Holder? Holder? Eric Holder?

Yeah, he was right on top of that "New Black Panther" case, wasn't he?

This makes the whole Val... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

This makes the whole Valerie Plame thing seem like a damn tea party.

Not to be nitpicky, but I do not like this comparison. Jay walking makes "the whole Valerie Plame thing seem like a damn tea party." At least jay walking is a real crime, unlike the manufactured scandal known as the "Plame affair" persecuted by kangaroo courts.

Nice try Vic. Trolls never ... (Below threshold)
bigbugna:

Nice try Vic. Trolls never prosper. Go back to Huff or Kos to spit your vile crap. Go Kim!!!

Vic, Disagreeing is... (Below threshold)

Vic,
Disagreeing is not hatred, and your accusations
against Kim Priestap are disrespectful as well as disingenuous.

It was treason, an... (Below threshold)
The Big O!:
It was treason, and the responsible parties in all cases of treason should be tried and if convicted punished according the to the law.

Heck, VIO, if you've got that much of a hate-on for Richard Armitage, prosecute away!

Since I'm a giver, here's a video of his confession that he's the one who outed Valerie Plame, which might help your case against him.

Good luck!

Come back Vic, please come ... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Come back Vic, please come back! I so miss the stories of how Val was a NOC while she's was driving every day on the public roads, pulling into the CIA parking lot in Langley. Please come back and tell me a story, Vic!

Vic is a chowder head that ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Vic is a chowder head that doesn't know facts even if it bites him on the Obama.

Also, the left's hatred of women is telling. Hillary, Palin and Kim.

In regards to this post, this is why I do not want these detainee's tried in our judicial system. Discovery will kill our undercover work and intelligience agencies. Keep it in the tribunals and charge these lawyers for deliberately revealing our american undercover agents. They don't even know they not only put the agents life in jeopardy but their families too. The left does not care. ww

"Discovery will kill our un... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Discovery will kill our undercover work and intelligence agencies."

That's the idea. Either because the defense (aka ACLU) will demand their presence, or the government will refuse in order to protect their identity. No witnesses, no prosecution, no case. Let the defendants go free. Strange how that all works out.

Yeah, <a href="http://murra... (Below threshold)
vic:

Yeah, the reality about the right's crimes is a real buzzkill, isn't it?

Just as the left has been saying for years:

Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a still-highly confidential FBI report, admitted to federal investigators that he rewrote talking points for the press in July 2003 that made it much more likely that the role of then-covert CIA-officer Valerie Plame in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa would come to light.

Cheney conceded during his interview with federal investigators that in drawing attention to Plame's role in arranging her husband's Africa trip reporters might also unmask her role as CIA officer.

Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative. But the investigators came away from their interview with Cheney believing that he had not given them a plausible explanation as to how he could focus attention on Plame's role in arranging her husband's trip without her CIA status also possibly publicly exposed. At the time, Plame was a covert CIA officer involved in preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and Cheney's office played a central role in exposing her and nullifying much of her work.

And just yesterday former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge released information that showed the Bush White House manipulated the "Terrorist Alert System" for political purposes, and attempted to do so just before the 2004 elections -- just as the left has been saying all of these years:

Former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, the first director of the Department of Homeland Security, says that he was pressured by other Bush administration department heads to raise the national security-threat level on the eve of the 2004 presidential election -- a move he rejected as having such uncomfortable political undertones that it could destroy the administration's credibility.

...

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft "strongly urged" that the threat level be raised just three days before the election, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sided with Ashcroft in the "vigorous, some might say dramatic discussion," Ridge writes.

And yet the right is silent on this latest outrage. Our government lying to American citizens for political advantage.

By the way -- manipulating the security threat level for political purposes is a war crime. For some odd reason Priestap is silent on Ashcroft's and Rumsfeld's war crimes, but steps up to the plate and calls for the hanging of a couple of lawyers before they are even convicted.

No wonder epador wants me banned. I'm killing the buzz of excitement created by Priestap's call for a good ol' lynching.

The right defended Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc. -- but I'm not defending the lawyers who may have broken the law here.

I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Vic

Keep spinning it Vic. "the... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Keep spinning it Vic. "the left says"..."according to a still-highly confidential FBI report,"

Yep, real 'confidential' report that no one else has seen.

Here's on for you Vic. "Usually reliable sources state in a Top Secret memo that it's been determined that one Victory Is Ours is a mind-numbing troll."

Of course we cannot divulge those 'sources' nor show you 'the memo'.

"Former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, the first director of the Department of Homeland Security, - WHO WILL BE WRITING A "TELL ALL" BOOK THAT HE WOULD LIKE YOU TO BUY SO THAT HE CAN MAKE MONEY - says that he was pressured by other Bush administration department heads to raise the national security-threat level on the eve of the 2004 presidential election."

Just how much did Scott McClellan "reveal" in his book, then start back tracking on?

Vic, that's not what the ar... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Vic, that's not what the article says. It does not say that it was for political purposes. You stopped reading when you saw something that fit your thinking.

From the WaPo article you seem to be wildly gesticulating at ("SEE...? SEE...?"):

"'In other parts of the book, Tom acknowledges that politics never played a role in any of his decisions about the threat alert system. So you have to wonder if this is not just publicity meant to sell more books,' she added.

"A spokesman for Rumsfeld rejected Ridge's assertion.

"'The story line advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense,' Keith Urbahn said..."

Some people up their meds when they're under stress.

Up yours.

Bobdog quotes two members o... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Bobdog quotes two members of the Bush administration to 'discount' Ridge's remarks --- only he doesn't identify one of them.

This quote:

"In other parts of the book, Tom acknowledges that politics never played a role in any of his decisions about the threat alert system. So you have to wonder if this is not just publicity meant to sell more books,' she added."

The 'she' referred to is a Bush administration aide, Frances Townsend.

Federal Bureau of Investigation director Robert S. Mueller III sided with Ridge, he writes, and in the absence of consensus, no recommendation was made to White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend.

Instead, a Ridge aide advised the president, who was flying on Air Force One to a campaign stop, through his aide Dan Bartlett that DHS was "strongly opposed" to raising the threat level, and by the next day the question was dropped.


The other denial is from Rumsfeld's aide.

That's a surprise -- the guilty parties and their aides deny it ever happened. Proof positive... of nothing.

"Federal Bureau of Investigation director Robert S. Mueller III sided with Ridge..."

It happened, and it sounds like Townsend may not have known anything about it, so where is Mueller's denial? Ridge wrote that Mueller sided with him -- has Mueller denied it? No.

Both Mueller and Ridge are Republicans.

Where's the outrage? It's been redirected into lynching a couple of ACLU lawyers.

Nice sheet, Bobdog. Rage much?

Vic

vic - "And just yesterd... (Below threshold)
Marc:

vic - "And just yesterday former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge released information that showed the Bush White House manipulated the "Terrorist Alert System" for political purposes, and attempted to do so just before the 2004 elections -- just as the left has been saying all of these years:"

Oh gee, what a shock you've breathlessly latched onto a press release that is specifically designed to spur book sales.

pssssst, may suggest the chapter titled "The Politics of Terrorism, Part I,"

Within it you will find this quote from Ridge:

"In spite of allegations of playing politics, as time went on, our office was more often than not the most reluctant to raise the threat level. Despite perception to the contrary, the White House couldn't, as a matter of course, call us up and say, 'Go to orange, Tom."
Apparently the publisher decided to ignore the above quote, can you guess why vic?

If that's not definitive enough for you vic, Tom Ridge has a definitive statement for you. Earlier in the book, addressing the allegations that political pressure had been applied to raise threat levels, Ridge has this to say:

"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."
So much for your DKos Kiddies/huf-n-puff/croak and liars talking points.

Better head for the nearest Meme Store, yours are past their sell by date.

Vic, you really are a lunat... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Vic, you really are a lunatic. Lost in your narrative it the fact that Plame and her husband conspired against the U.S. Government in war time and gave false accounts of intelligence reports for political sabotage. They are the treasonous ones. The only thing the Bush administration is "guilty" of is trying to defend itself against the lies. Tom Ridge is just another backstabber trying to sell a book.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn't it? Armitage: His wife works for the agency. Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret? Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it. Woodward: Everyone knows? Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.
"The Left jumped up and dow... (Below threshold)

"The Left jumped up and down and got its panties in a bunch because it said 'exposing' (the low-level CIA clerk,) Valerie Plame, was treason."

So why aren't Richard Armitage and Joseph C. Wilson IV, who "outed" her and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who made himself an accessory after the fact of the "outing" and attempted to procure the false prosecution of 'Scooter' Libby, in prison.

in the next-door cell, one might hope, to that occupied by that other couple of "Democratic" party recidivist/perjurers, the co-serial-rapist Missus and master Billy-bubbah "Blowjob" Blithe Cli'tons.

"Lost in your narrative ... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"Lost in your narrative it the fact that Plame and her husband conspired against the U.S. Government in war time and gave false accounts of intelligence reports for political sabotage"

So the Office of the Vice-President acted illegally in return?

Whatever Plame and Wilson may or may not have done, NOTHING justifies our government acting illegally.

That's what Priestap ignores in her "let's lynch 'em" rage. Comparing the actions of a few citizens who may have broken the law to the law-breaking actions of the Office of the Vice-President is ridiculous.

How can you guys justify defending a Republican administration that acted illegally repeatedly?

Oh yeah, you just pretend it didn't happen.

Vic

"Let me make it very cle... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so.""

No, he was asked and pressured to do so, but never directed to by a higher up.

Rumsfeld and Ashcroft didn't have the authority to "direct him to do so" - and Ridge isn't claiming that Bush directed him to do so, that's correct.

Good boy, you can read. Obviously it doesn't contradict anything Ridge or I have written, but you're such a good boy for showing off your excellent reading skills.

I suggest you work on comprehension and context.

What Rumsfeld and Ashcroft did is still a war crime, the fact that they failed is not relevant. You still go to jail if you attempt to rob a bank - failing in your effort to rob the bank does not absolve you of the crime.

Vic

"What Rumsfeld and Ashcroft... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"What Rumsfeld and Ashcroft did is still a war crime."

I am VIC, determiner of guilt or innocence!
I will decide, I will pronounce! If Republican, GUILTY! If Democrat, ....well....maybe not....probably not......not.

vic - "What Rumsfeld an... (Below threshold)
Marc:

vic - "What Rumsfeld and Ashcroft did is still a war crime, the fact that they failed is not relevant."

Well then, you can cite which ones right? Which laws/treaties did they break with respect to this incident?

I can't cite the law, Mark.... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

I can't cite the law, Mark. I saw a TV interview where it was discussed and the legal expert wrote cited the law that was broken here but I didn't write it down.

Vic

Could you imagine the ACLU ... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

Could you imagine the ACLU during WW II suing to protect the sabatures THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN LYNCHED

"This makes the whole Valer... (Below threshold)
Jake:

"This makes the whole Valerie Plame thing seem like a damn tea party."

A completely useless, yet loudly performed event? Not sure I'd agree, but surprised to hear you categorize the Plame issue like that! :)

"ACLU and attorneys defending jihadis who plotted to bring down our country on 9/11"

For shame! Defendants getting lawyers! It's unimaginable that guilty until proven innocent defendants should get access to counsel!

Oh wait, according to Article 6 of the US Constitution it's required:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"

I love the arguments based on the idea that the Constitution is absolute, clear, and unquestionable... until something happens you disagree with (like those Jihadis getting legal representation).

Wow! This is incredible. I ... (Below threshold)
Will Davis:

Wow! This is incredible. I already knew that the ACLU was a grossly antiAmerican organization but this just destroy any previous limits I had in mind about how low they would sink




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy