1) Novak reveals his Plame source. And I must admit, I actually giggled when I read it. (h/t STACLU; see also, Wizbang).
2) From the AP, “U.S. Extends Geneva Rights to Detainees”:
The Bush administration, bowing to court edict and political pressure, guaranteed the basic protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives in the war on terrorism and asked lawmakers Tuesday to restore the military tribunals now in limbo.
As senators took up the prickly question of how suspected terrorists should be treated and tried, the administration disclosed it had ordered a review of military detention practices to make sure they comply with Geneva standards.
The administration has refused to grant Geneva status to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere, saying they were not from a recognized nation, were not captured in uniform and did not observe traditional rules of war.
Instead, the people apprehended in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other zones in the war on terrorism have been classified as “unlawful combatants.” The Supreme Court last month invalidated the tribunals handling these cases, ruling they defied international law and had not been authorized by Congress.
The administration sought remedies on both fronts Tuesday, revisiting its prisoner guarantees and appealing to senators to revive the tribunals with legislation. Some critics have suggested the detainees should be tried by military courts-martial instead, an idea opposed by President Bush.
The Senate is unlikely to act until the fall, setting up a pitched debate over the issue at the height of the campaign for control of Congress.
A memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England to all branches of the armed forces, released Tuesday, instructed them to ensure that all Defense Department policies, practices and directives comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions governing the humane treatment of prisoners.
The practical effect on interrogation techniques, detention conditions and trial procedures was unclear.
Uh, unclear to whom, exactly? Geneva protections provide for no offense to personal dignity. Which, taking into account the multiculturalist prism through which this is likely to be viewed and distorted, means that Jews and women and gays and pork eaters are no longer able to speak with these “prisoners of war” (except, perhaps, to bring them their prayer rugs and halal meals, and to convert).
Oh. And soldiers should probably remove any US insignias from their uniforms. The US being the imperialist oppressors and the Great Satan and all, simply looking at their flag and not being able to burn it is an offense to the personal dignity of the jihadists.
In fact, as they’ve vowed to slaughter Americans wherever and whenever they can, keeping them in captivity is keeping them from doing their religious duty. And that, it seems to me, in an offense to their personal dignity.
So either release them, or allow them to saw off some soldiers’ heads and videotape it. Otherwise the terrorists will have—well, you know.
(h/t Ron Ackert)
How about the practical effects of death? The unintended consequence of this ruling is that the bad guys just aren’t going to be taken alive anymore. No prisoners, no problems.
Bwahahahaha! Is it published by the NYT?
The book in question has been subpoenaed by Patrick Fitzgerald.
It claims to have coughed up its information inadvertently.
1. Too damn funny. And the leaker of Joe Wilson’s wife’s name is–Joe Wilson! Think any moonbat heads will explode after that?
2. That was my thought, too, ahem. Not that it will be official policy, mind you.
I assume Novak’ll reveal his primary source Wednesday?
She was outed by the CIA press office and her own husband?
Dang.
Over the holiday weekend I told my dad it was probably Joe Wilson who outed her. Got it half right.
Cac-tus’s lower lip trembles, his eyes well up:
“Say it ain’t so, Joe. Say it ain’t so!”
The deranged moonbat shrieking and gibbering in reaction to this has only just begun.
Watch it all take place in real time!
Er…does this really change anything? I’ve tried to follow this non-scandal as little as possible, but as far as I’m aware the issue according to the Wilsonites isn’t that she was named specifically, but that she was allegedly outed by someone in the administration as a CIA agent.
I still remain convinced that this is a non-scandal, but I can’t imagine people who are convinced otherwise changing their minds as a result of this revelation.
FWIW, the first time someone suggested that—tongue-in-cheek, as I recall—my first reaction was along the lines of, “Well, yeah.”
Only after I gave it a half-second’s thought did I decide I had no basis for believing it except wishful thinking.
So this just goes to show: my wishes do come true.
Fear me.
And send me money.
I’ve only just begun–to laugh;
Wilson and Plame affair,
I bet Thersites will cry no fair.
And yes, I’ve just begun . . .
TW: man, this is going to be teh funny
IN A TIME OF WAR!!!
No, and no word yet from the 5 Dean’s of Journalism who op-ed’d yesterday that the Plame by Novak, not all the national security program details in the NYT’s, was the greatest threat to out democracy and journalistic sin…wonder if they even looked in their handy journalism must have “Who’s Who” for accuracy’s sake before submitting?
Bwahahahaha!—again.
Novak says Rove was only a confirming source…but, his primary…
Fascinating that this source is assumed to be Woodward’s source…He talked to Woodward a month earlier and the during the investigation Woodward prodded him to come forward and he denied that request many times…
Well, as Ace has said on his main page the Wilson revelation isn’t really a big deal. He got her name from him, which means nothing; but what I find funny is that it didn’t come directly from the administration, but her f’ing employer. I hope a lot of people are feeling very dumb over this, I know I do just for having followed it in a half-assed manner.
Somebody needs to do a CheChe sendup about now.
Wow, but Jason Leoplod said that … sputter, sputer, pop, spark, BOOM
And Fitzgerald knew this for a year and a half and he let that fester so long. I can imagine what Novak had to put up with.
Oh, after all this the retardo montalban and his merry band mental midgets will never believe it.
So Who’s who.
Heh!
hmmmm,
I wonder how they forgot ex parte Quirin?
“I’llllllllllllll… be bonnnnnnnnnnnnned… for Fitzmasssssssssssssssss…!”
*SNORT*giggle*
Novak’s source: LOL.
In general, I think it’s good, and also good PR, for the US to abide by Article 3. I really see no reason not to. I doubt that treating these people badly has yielded much good intelligence. And, I have heard anecdotally, and know from my own time in service (part of which was in helping run a ship’s brig), that unless there are bright lines there will be abuses.
As I understand it, quite a few of these guys we are holding are suspicious characters who may be dangerous to us. Fine. Hold them for the duration, or, re-write the laws to get it past SCOTUS so they can have a day in court. That will settle it once and for all.
On the other hand, I’m sure a good number of these dudes are hostile sadistic killers. Frankly, treating them under Article 3 will only treat them as well as our sizable national Death Rows which are inhabited by thousands of hostile and sadistic killers, whose deeds are well documented.
People are angry and I understand that. I just don’t see the justification for abuses or interrogation techniques bordering on torture.
I realize the WOT is very frustrating but we won’t get to where we want to be by thumping or offing people. Mainly because that’s not the purpose of the WOT. The aim is to get the people in the Middle East to change their minds and change their ways. That’s a supra-military task. It will take a long time. But, quoting Pope, “A man convinced against his will …..”
Its really cute for him to add how he figured out the name of Joe Wilson’s wife. Big secret that’s always been.
Wow. It almsot sounds like you get that this was bullshit from the beginning.
Have you been hanging out with Maryscott, actus? What were you drinking?
tw: analysis
Jeff, did the new host upgrade the AI? That thing is smoking.
Man oh man oh man… firedoglake is gonna be a freakin’ snakepit tonight, ain’t it…?
Guards either must convert to Islam or accept dhimmitude. Anything less is haram.
“Who’s Who” – toldya.
Gitmo: JUST SHOOT THE CRAZY FUCKS ALREADY!
NB: religous insanity is insanity none the less.
SB: hundred
scarlet mongol
Speaking of which, it’s downright adorable how you miss the forest for the trees. Don’t change Actus.
Certainly. Joe Wilson had a wife. She even had a name that, get this, other people knew about, and used when referring to her.
Hey Actus! Drop the pinecone, there’s a forest over there. No…right in front of you! Bahhh
I’m sure that when the Plames had breakfast with Kristoff, Valerie didn’t out herself. No way.
Thanks. I found it.
But I dont why people sum this up as Novak revealing his source. Unless the meaning of “reveal” and “source” has been willed changed.
Oops. Some ctrl-c ctrl-v errors there.
I came to this crappy blog and all I got was this “Hope your son gets Benet’d” tshirt! :(
Are you sure? I thought this was it:
and:
and:
I wonder why there’s no star for the Fitzmas tree.
Hell, there isn’t even a Fitzmas tree!
It’s almost as if there was no crime committed in the “outing” of Valerie Plame. You know, like if the New York Times had reported it.
tw: easy
That first paragraph appears to be speaking about the same person in my quite. It doesn’t reveal a source.
But its a real nice touch for everyone to highlighte the Who’s Who bit about finding out the name of Joe Wilson’s wife. You don’t even have to wonder what the morons at stoptheaclu will say about it. But you do wonder what a bright, intelligent guy like Goldstein is doing reading those idiots.
Leaving crumbs much to small for the other Fitzmouses.
____+______
___+++_____
__+++++____
_+++++++___
____+______
Merry Fitzmas.
Maybe we should send Jame Hamsher some Dolly Madison cupcakes.
.
actus –
two simple questions:
1) Do you believe Wilson’s editorial in the NYT was written in ‘good faith’?
2) Why?
.
I didn’t read it. But I don’t see what it has to do with the plame leak thing. If people want to try to justify the leak on the basis of retaliation or impeachment of Wilson’s credibility, they can go ahead.
No, it doesn’t. But it does say that the disclosure was obscure and inadvertent from someone who did not apparently have an axe to grind. Unless you are going to call him a liar.
Well I stipulated at the top of this thread that the quote was insignificant, but I included it in my second quotation because the way it was originally quoted makes it clear that Novak was not attempting to state that Wilson was his source or something crazy like that, nor was he trying to hint at anything. It seems like offhand information. Like I got my info from here, here, and here, and filled in the blanks from Joe Wilson’s web site.
But still, my whole point is that what you took from all this was that one little quote that you’re bashing everyone else for highlighting, while ignoring the fact that no crime seems to have been committed, despite all this brouhaha.
Jeff wrote:
Not quite accurate. Common Article 3 prohibits outrages on personal dignity. Not mere offenses.
The distinction matters, IMO.
Not in the hands of people who are outraged in perpetuity. In such a case, offenses are as bad as outrages, because everything, including my scoop of ice cream that just melted, is an outrage.
Thanks for that, Army Lawyer. I believe you would be correct in saying that that’s true. I think that Jeff was being satirical, but still . . .
Everyone is forgeting something.
Ignore Actus.
He never makes a point, argues in bad faith over trivial matters and constantly moves the goalposts.
Right now he’s arguing that Novak hasn’t named his original source for the information that Wilson’s wife sent Wilson to Niger. Novak got Wilson’s wifes name, Valerie Plame, from the Who’s Who in America. I think he’s arguing that the underlying crime of outing Plame, if there was one, would have been commited by the original source who, while not giving up her Name, pointed Novak towards Plame in a manner that insured that Novak would find out her identity.
Therefore, if the outing of Plame was a crime, the person responsible for that “crime” is still unnamed. The only problem is Fitzgerald has allowed Novak to discuss the case because he, Fitzgerald, had concluded his investigation of those individuals. Therefore, given what we know in total it is virtually certain that no one else is going to be charged in this case but Libby.
So you can see what Actus is sideways arguing is that a member of the administration could still be charged. He’ll deny it though because he knows it’s ridiculous but that won’t stop him from arguing every point, big and small, along the way.
Don’t play the game.
My Further Conversations With The Neighbor’s Dog, Charlie*
No, goddammit. NO!
Bad dog!
Christ. I don’t even own a Bulldog…
SB: england
expects
* Just Kidding
If people want to try to justify the leak on the basis of retaliation
If the leak had been Rove, one might assert the motivation was revenge. The facts imply otherwise, now.
… or impeachment of Wilson’s credibility, they can go ahead.
This is so obvious, that is seems unnecessary except to the most ardent BDS proponent (I hate to use the word victim since that joins the liberal victim mantra too readily. I think persons exhibiting BDS are proponents of craziness rather than victims). Wilson is a liar. Period.
Why would novak lie?
If novak said no crime was committed, then there’s never reason for any investigation.
But the outrage isn’t determined by the person in captivity, or their lawyer or whoever gets a microphone. Probably the outrage will be determined by the same court that had no problem with these people being held forever.
I have no idea about charges and what fitz is up to. What I do know is that Novak hasn’t revealed his source. And for some reason people are going gah gah over the who’s who thing.
Yeah, you can argue that some will find seeing a SPC in a bra to be an “outrage on personal dignity”–but to make that charge stick you have to compare it to the other sort of conduct that CA3 prohibits.
Namely: murder, mutilation, torture, arbitrary sentences and executions, and the taking of hostages.
Is it too late for me to change careers and be a special prosecutor?
I can ask lots of questions and get everything wrong.
Or a CIA agent? I can get my wife to keep my name out of Who’s Who.
I could use a career change – one with good pay and not much in the way of qualifications.
Fine, Novak hasn’t revealed his source. Stipulated. Now can we go back to having fun laughing at all the leftards who wanted so badly for this to be the next Watergate?
Army Lawyer–
Good to have you here. That thing about the SPC in a bra. What about an SPC not in a bra?
Also, you will probably find more detailed discussion of this particular issue at patterico.com, where I’m sure your expertise will be welcome.
Makes me sick. I felt, and still feel, that Bush should have simply ignored the court’s ruling. The ocurt has no enforcement power apart from the administration and the founders designed it that way on purpose. It is one of the few checks on judicial power.
Special no. Indepedent counsel? yes. That statute was allowed to expire after the Starr investigation.
I don’t think you’ll make it far as a prosecutor.
Oh. Have your fun. No matter what. Find a picture of wilson and his wife on the street in public. Don’t ask me for permission.
Dan:
Thanks, I know Patterico (or did in my civilian non-anonymous life.)
And I don’t have expertise, just a bunch of briefing books I crib from.
The Church of Colbert has called for an emergency meeting.
It doesn’t have to stick by a court of law standard, it just has to become a mantra given air-time on CNN et al.
I think you’re underestimating the degree to which people lack any kind of perspective. By definition, half of the world’s population has an IQ below 100. People who are stuck in the concrete stage of development are not able to make distinctions because they are cognitively handicapped. Couple that with the media’s habit of trying to present every issue as though it is worthy of thoughtful debate and neither side is wrong and you get discussions of “Does the US go too far?” no matter how reasonable we may see it as.
I just remember Durbin (or Kennedy) shaking in anger as he was describing how we keep these people in cells and turn off the AC during the day and sometimes even turn it up way too high! I honestly thought it was satire when he then compared this to the Soviet gulags. That is a complete failure to make a distinction of any kind. It does not exist to these people.
What’s to stop us from jumping through the requisite hoops to declare these gomers illegal combatants under Geneva?
Is there a lawyer in the house?
On the face of it, I can’t see why they haven’t been treated that way from the onset of hostilities.
Is it that the political cost of catching and then summarily shooting them is perceived to be too high? How could political costs be any higher? What with the minority party already suing for surrender and our media exposing our means & methods as fast as disgruntled CIA/state traitors can email, I mean?
New York, Bali, Madrid, London, Bombay.
Whose turn is it tomorrow?
TW=”directly”. Jihadi capture should lead directly to summary execution.
actus,
I think I’ve still got that copy of GQ lying around. Send me your address and I’ll ship it to you.
Army Lawyer,
Well, if you didn’t get a look at Patterico’s descent into Hell last night, you might find that amusing.
thelinyguy:
Oh, I don’t doubt that a lot of people will think that the things that make Andrew Sullivan’s heart go all a-flutter are what’s prohibited by CA3.
My point is that the further away you get from those sorts (not to sound elitist, but meaning the higher up the chain of “seriousness” you go), the less and less problematic the application of CA3 becomes.
Dan:
I did. Even commented at the Sadly No site.
Granted, my comment was about cock-slapping…but hey, I contributed.
Don’t forget, it’s all about getting the truth out:
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php
Tastes great. Less filling.
TW: horse, as in, “To whom does this ass belong?”
Oh i’ve seen it. Its hilarious isn’t it? There he is. With a wife! For everyone to see!
Thanks for your contribution. It’s good to know you’ve got our backss whenever it comes down to a big cockfight.
Yes, it is hilarious, actus. Enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in their hip roadster, like some kind of mendacious frischhead celebrities for fucktards. Yes, it is. And since you’re so ungrateful, I’m going to keep it.
*cockslap*
Ow! That was like I hit a frickin’ telephone pole, or something.
What part of teh funny do you not get?
TW: living, the vida loca
Oh, I’m sorry, were you given the overwhelming impression throughout this fiasco that a crime had actually been committed and someone was going to jail for outing a spy? Didn’t mean to make an unwarranted assumption.
Right, but as Goldstein said, “Which, taking into account the multiculturalist prism through which this is likely to be viewed and distorted . . . “ I guess you seem to think we’re dealing with some real hard asses, though, and that won’t be an issue. Good, hope you’re right. I was saying that the disctinction Army Lawyer was making did not matter if what Goldstein was saying is correct. In other words, when you’re dealing with that “multiculturalist†subjectivism, the word “outrage†is as shapeless as water.
Yeah, you can tell how much danger they’re in by the fact that they appeared in Vanity Fair together, appeared in public at the correspondents dinner together and Joe Wilson is on the lecture circuit appearing in different places on a publically available schedule. All those things are clear signs that they have gone into hiding due to the outing of Plame.
Dammit, I can’t even take my own advice. Well from now on then.
Actus…swear no snark, but what’s your point here?
And I think Jeff’s fears on that point are overstated.
I think the multiculti mindset gets you around having the case laughed out of court, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to carry the day.
Of course, I may be wrong,
Yeah, you’re right. It was Vanity Fair. Becky Sharp & all the other puppets. You’re still not getting my copy, actus. Ingrate.
TW: came, they came, they were seen, it’s time they went away
precisely.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. You mean you actually let it… touch… IT—?!?
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
Privacy rights the actus way: the right to slander as anonymously and simultaneously publicly as much as you like
Kent,
It’s not like I let IT touch it. Geez. So uptight.
Still, I’m going to shower.
Well… just make certain to use lots and lots of paint thinner, afterwards. AND Brillo.
Do. Not. Take. Any. CHANCES.
Charlie
Girl HEH!
I think you’re right, for whatever that’s worth, but I am beyond surprise at this point.
Also, to anyone who can tell me: I admit that I really never followed the Plame/Wilson/Niger thing all that closely because I could tell early on the truth was going to be buried under 300 feet of lead. What I don’t understand is, has it been determined with any certainty at this point as to whether Plame was, in fact, undercover? It seemed as though the qualifications for such were rather cut and dry, and yet I never hear mention of it in any editorials. Was she a friggin undercover spy or not, and was her current work put under any jeopardy by her “outing”? If not, then why the hell are people still chirping about this? If so, why isn’t someone in jail? If it hasn’t been determined, why the hell not?
For what it’s worth, even I think my fears are overstated specifically. The point is, these court rulings provide an opening for PC bureaucracy to step in.
That, and I think the Court overstepped its bounds.
linyguy, I’m going to plagiarize my comment from Just One Minute:
I don’t think Plame was covert, either under the IIPA or in a more general sense.
What do you think about the paint thinner, Jeff? I mean, is that going a bit overboard?
I’ve got some kerosene left. Will that work?
In my brief introduction to special counsels, I thought they were around to figure that out.
I read what Goldstein said. I think its a bunch of alarmist BS. Just because there is a multiculturalist prism doesn’t mean hte courts will use it.
And if you’re on the cover of vanity fair, it means anyone can get to you.
From the intelligence people taht I did read, the concern it wasn’t so much her current work, but the people who had in the past worked with her.
Well at least Wilson apologized for outing his wife.
……
……
……
BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH……
From the intelligence people taht I did read, the concern it wasn’t so much her current work, but the people who had in the past worked with her.
Why? Did Scooter help out them too?
Do you believe that Saddam was trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger?
If you were a DC bartender, and knew that Plame worked for the CIA, would you exercise more discretion than, um . . . the NYT?
If you were concerned about blowing the cover of your associates, would you opt into a photo spread in a national magazine?
If you disavowed your wife’s having had any influence in your being chosen to do a fact-finding mission, when in fact she pumped her superiors on your behalf, would you expect to have any credibility without having calculated on the MSM’s help with your version?
Thanks for the response Charlie. I guess I’m just surprised that such a seemingly relevant issue hasn’t been deteremined in any official sense.
Fine, but that’s irrelevent and not what I was asking for. If she was no longer undercover for the requisite period of time, then no crime was committed, right? So why does no one seem to know for sure whether this is the case?
Somebody missed the last round of affirmative action rulings.
And yes, I blame O’Connor. The others were predictable.
If you were Fitzgerald, would you want to just come right out and say she wasn’t? Actually, now that the Hamster that Roared is attempting to overthrow Conneticut, it might be a good time to just say it while they are all distracted.
thelinyguy–
Because there is actual undercover status, and, as I think you imply, statutory undercover status. And the Wilson-Plame truthout people have decided that the latter is more germane than any abstract question involving the truth. And they assume that we won’t know the difference. But perhaps that’s not responsive, either.
– Some dude on O’s show just “outed” the NYTrash. Says Malkin was told by Fitzy that an Org sith known connections to al Qaeda was “warned” by the Trash that the Feds were getting ready to raid their offices…. Whoa
– Some more “informing the needs of the public”?, or is this a living case of absolute freedom corrupts absolutely…..
Well, I know of one landmark building in NYC where they won’t have to spend Homeland Defense money to protect it.
Godfather voice: “You see, Pinch, you don’ have to pay us protection in cash. We know you’re a little hard up right now. Alls we’re askin’ for is a little, you know . . . information, capish?”
The way I understand it, its not a secret that she exists. Just her work.
Why wouldn’t there even be a special counsel then?
I don’t think we have, say, a 30 some year tradition of applying a geneva prohibition against outrages by the subjective standards of muslim extremists. Not from the court, o’connor included, that is fine with holding people forever.
But its a great vehicle for you to expound on your theories of identity politics, etc… Go for it.
Links?
– I’m shocked….shocked I tell you…. The NYT actively aiding the Terrorists….. round up the usual suspects and take them to Soros’s trailer for their payoffs…..
Then, no offense, they way you understand it is really wrong and honestly goes against what Wilson told David Corn and well the majority of the leftist blog-o-sphere. And no offense, again but if it were her “WORK” that was compromised, then um—all things being relevant to, say perjury— they be investigating who leaked HER WORK!
Folks, in the interest of taste and decorum, me being ALL about the taste and decorum, let me note that this practice of “cock-slapping” is technically known as “turkey-slapping.”
Although, according to Tim Blair and the folks at Big Brother Australia it’s a rather more complex process than we’ve been led to believe…
Oh forgot to add…the only one indicted is not indicted on leaking her “identity” OR her “WORK”…
and then there’s that pesky aspect that her own employer leaked–aka “outed” her like 3 times..so
compounded by the fact her Husband DID advertise her super secret name in Who’s Who, Epic Forum and like ever bio he submitted…so
I understand Professor Di Genova at NYU has changed his rallying cry from “a million Mogadishus” to “a million Milosevics”…