The lunar right needs a little privacy right about now
The Valerie Plame Outing: Fear and Loathing at the CIA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Kouri
Oct 31, 2005
I am deeply troubled. I'm troubled over the liberal-left's newfound love for the Central Intelligence Agency. I guess we should be glad that they're not calling for more restrictions on the CIA or trying to inflict further budget cuts on the beleagured agency.
But when I see a political party whose members liken our military to Nazis and offer aid and comfort to our enemies -- intentionally or unintentionally -- defending people they otherwise regularly condemn, it causes me to pause and reflect upon the reasons for the CIA suddenly being protected by the leftists in the Democrat Party and their echo chamber in the news media.
Since Friday, the news media coverage of the Libby indictment has reached the level of absurdity. Even Fox News Channel decided to add a new twist to the alleged outing of CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame by the Bush White House: fear at the CIA over agents being outed.
Personally, they have nothing to worry about. Our enemies know that the CIA's ineptness is an asset to their Jihad, so why would they wish to harm members of that agency? It's in the best interests of those who wish Americans harm to have the same ineffective people operating a dysfunctional intelligence service.
This may shock the reader, but I believe Valerie Plame deserved to be outed, covert or not covert. The woman was running her own covert CIA operation to undermine the Bush Administration's war plans and she used her husband, Joe Wilson, to do it. We still have no information on who at the CIA actually dispatched Joe Wilson to Africa. Lewis Libby's mistake was not telling the American people that indeed he told reporters about Plame and perhaps there should have been a televised press conference announcing the deceit of Wilson and Plame and illegal operations being conducted within the continental United States by an out-of-control intelligence agency.
When Wilson came back from Niger, Africa, he began a campaign to cast doubts on British intelligence reports that were quoted by President Bush. It was repeatedly discovered that Wilson told lie after lie after lie. For example, he claimed he was sent on his fact-finding mission by the Vice President. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Cheney never heard of the man prior to his rantings. He claimed that no one knew Valerie Plame worked at CIA. Lie. Wilson routinely introduced his wife at Washington's elitist functions and parties as his "CIA wife." Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with his Niger assignment. Lie. His wife recommended him for the job. Even his New York Times op-ed denigrating President Bush turned out to be a pack of lies when compared with what he told congress.
The lies continued before the 2004 election until the conservative media proved Joe Wilson to be a pathological liar. Even presidential candidate John Kerry removed Wilson's bio and picture from his campaign website. Kerry dropped him like a hot potato. Cheney, Libby, Rove and even President Bush should have sounded the alarm instead of holding their tongues about a renegade operation being conducted by members of the CIA and John Kerry's foreign affairs advisor Joe Wilson.
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that Valerie Plame was frightened after having her so-called cover blown. Having her photo in Vanity Fair and going to events with her husband is hardly the behavior of someone frightened by having her identity blown. Instead of looking for the closest safehouse, she's now a Washington celebrity. Look for a movie to come out about her and her hero husband: "All The President's Men Part II."
As far as CIA agents living in fear of being outed, perhaps they should start doing their jobs instead of leaking information to the news media and playing political games. Their track record on intelligence gathering and analysis hasn't been all that stellar. New York City endured the death of over 2,700 people because the CIA couldn't catch a cold in the dead of winter, much less capture terrorists plotting death and destruction in American cities. Perhaps CIA director Porter Goss and the new intelligence czar John Negroponte should accelerate house cleaning at the CIA.
In a previous article, I alleged that the CIA has morphed into a liberal-left think tank. Now more than ever I suspect this deadly transition has occurred within the intelligence community. And why this newfound love for an agency they once detested? The Democrats HATE George W. Bush. Apparently the CIA shadow government isn't that crazy about Bush either. In Mao's Red Book, he says, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It may be as simple as that.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Candidate ideology
How does a Supreme Court candidate get a break around here? No sooner did Bush nominate Harriet Miers than ideological conservatives ripped her new anal aperture, even running TV ads urging her to withdraw. Religious conservatives were cautiously supportive because she belongs to an evangelical church, but liberal Democrats were enraged because years ago, as a political candidate in Texas, she checked "yes" on a questionnaire that asked whether she would oppose abortion except to save the mother's life. Then someone found an old speech in which she appeared to advocate choice. Exit Ms. Miers.
The focus of national concern appears to center on judicial candidates' interpretation of abortion rights so let's examine that subject and see if we can conger up some questions senators might ask whoever ends up in the "on deck circle."
Ideological conservatives view the Constitution as it was written in 1789. They are "originalists" who want judges to rule only in accordance with the black letter language of the document and not to impinge on personal liberties or states' sovereignty by "legislating from the bench" (i.e.: expanding the scope of the Constitution by lawyerly wordsmithing). Ideological conservatives condemn Roe v. Wade not because of its effect on criminal abortion laws but because an activist court "found" a Constitutional right to privacy as a "penumbra" of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause even though the term "privacy" is not found in the Constitution. Religious conservatives focus on "innocent lives" lost to abortionists and pray fervently for a candidate who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Democrats, obligated to several ardent women's pro choice organizations, favor candidates who will support "abortion on demand" which they claim is guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.
Here's my take. The idea of a Constitutional right to privacy is not going away any time soon. As the Roe opinion states: "In a line of (fourteen) decisions ... going back as far as ... 1891 the Court has recognized a ... guarantee of certain areas or zones of (personal) privacy... ." Chief Justice Roberts recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "The existence of a Constitutional right to privacy is long decided but that does not govern the outcome of future litigation of specific facts involving abortion." On the other hand Democrats should not get their shorts all in knots over Roe v Wade because that case did not establish a right to abortion on demand. It overturned a specific criminal abortion law but held: "that this right (of personal privacy) is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation (of abortion)." So the hot button issue is not whether there is a Constitutional right to privacy but how far should it be extended in future cases.
An interesting line of questioning at Senate hearings for the next candidate might be: (1) whether he/she believes that a "Constitutional right to privacy" would preclude government from criminalizing homosexual marriage; (2) whether government would be precluded from criminalizing marriage between brother and sister (or brother and brother)? (3) could a person be prevented from marrying his or her cat?
People say Constitutional law is boring! Man, you could bottle this stuff and sell it.
Jim Clark is president of the Incline Village/Crystal Bay Republican Advocates. He graduated from Loyola University School of Law in 1972 and was admitted to the State Bar of California the same year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Kouri
Oct 31, 2005
I am deeply troubled. I'm troubled over the liberal-left's newfound love for the Central Intelligence Agency. I guess we should be glad that they're not calling for more restrictions on the CIA or trying to inflict further budget cuts on the beleagured agency.
But when I see a political party whose members liken our military to Nazis and offer aid and comfort to our enemies -- intentionally or unintentionally -- defending people they otherwise regularly condemn, it causes me to pause and reflect upon the reasons for the CIA suddenly being protected by the leftists in the Democrat Party and their echo chamber in the news media.
Since Friday, the news media coverage of the Libby indictment has reached the level of absurdity. Even Fox News Channel decided to add a new twist to the alleged outing of CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame by the Bush White House: fear at the CIA over agents being outed.
Personally, they have nothing to worry about. Our enemies know that the CIA's ineptness is an asset to their Jihad, so why would they wish to harm members of that agency? It's in the best interests of those who wish Americans harm to have the same ineffective people operating a dysfunctional intelligence service.
This may shock the reader, but I believe Valerie Plame deserved to be outed, covert or not covert. The woman was running her own covert CIA operation to undermine the Bush Administration's war plans and she used her husband, Joe Wilson, to do it. We still have no information on who at the CIA actually dispatched Joe Wilson to Africa. Lewis Libby's mistake was not telling the American people that indeed he told reporters about Plame and perhaps there should have been a televised press conference announcing the deceit of Wilson and Plame and illegal operations being conducted within the continental United States by an out-of-control intelligence agency.
When Wilson came back from Niger, Africa, he began a campaign to cast doubts on British intelligence reports that were quoted by President Bush. It was repeatedly discovered that Wilson told lie after lie after lie. For example, he claimed he was sent on his fact-finding mission by the Vice President. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Cheney never heard of the man prior to his rantings. He claimed that no one knew Valerie Plame worked at CIA. Lie. Wilson routinely introduced his wife at Washington's elitist functions and parties as his "CIA wife." Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with his Niger assignment. Lie. His wife recommended him for the job. Even his New York Times op-ed denigrating President Bush turned out to be a pack of lies when compared with what he told congress.
The lies continued before the 2004 election until the conservative media proved Joe Wilson to be a pathological liar. Even presidential candidate John Kerry removed Wilson's bio and picture from his campaign website. Kerry dropped him like a hot potato. Cheney, Libby, Rove and even President Bush should have sounded the alarm instead of holding their tongues about a renegade operation being conducted by members of the CIA and John Kerry's foreign affairs advisor Joe Wilson.
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that Valerie Plame was frightened after having her so-called cover blown. Having her photo in Vanity Fair and going to events with her husband is hardly the behavior of someone frightened by having her identity blown. Instead of looking for the closest safehouse, she's now a Washington celebrity. Look for a movie to come out about her and her hero husband: "All The President's Men Part II."
As far as CIA agents living in fear of being outed, perhaps they should start doing their jobs instead of leaking information to the news media and playing political games. Their track record on intelligence gathering and analysis hasn't been all that stellar. New York City endured the death of over 2,700 people because the CIA couldn't catch a cold in the dead of winter, much less capture terrorists plotting death and destruction in American cities. Perhaps CIA director Porter Goss and the new intelligence czar John Negroponte should accelerate house cleaning at the CIA.
In a previous article, I alleged that the CIA has morphed into a liberal-left think tank. Now more than ever I suspect this deadly transition has occurred within the intelligence community. And why this newfound love for an agency they once detested? The Democrats HATE George W. Bush. Apparently the CIA shadow government isn't that crazy about Bush either. In Mao's Red Book, he says, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It may be as simple as that.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Candidate ideology
How does a Supreme Court candidate get a break around here? No sooner did Bush nominate Harriet Miers than ideological conservatives ripped her new anal aperture, even running TV ads urging her to withdraw. Religious conservatives were cautiously supportive because she belongs to an evangelical church, but liberal Democrats were enraged because years ago, as a political candidate in Texas, she checked "yes" on a questionnaire that asked whether she would oppose abortion except to save the mother's life. Then someone found an old speech in which she appeared to advocate choice. Exit Ms. Miers.
The focus of national concern appears to center on judicial candidates' interpretation of abortion rights so let's examine that subject and see if we can conger up some questions senators might ask whoever ends up in the "on deck circle."
Ideological conservatives view the Constitution as it was written in 1789. They are "originalists" who want judges to rule only in accordance with the black letter language of the document and not to impinge on personal liberties or states' sovereignty by "legislating from the bench" (i.e.: expanding the scope of the Constitution by lawyerly wordsmithing). Ideological conservatives condemn Roe v. Wade not because of its effect on criminal abortion laws but because an activist court "found" a Constitutional right to privacy as a "penumbra" of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause even though the term "privacy" is not found in the Constitution. Religious conservatives focus on "innocent lives" lost to abortionists and pray fervently for a candidate who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Democrats, obligated to several ardent women's pro choice organizations, favor candidates who will support "abortion on demand" which they claim is guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.
Here's my take. The idea of a Constitutional right to privacy is not going away any time soon. As the Roe opinion states: "In a line of (fourteen) decisions ... going back as far as ... 1891 the Court has recognized a ... guarantee of certain areas or zones of (personal) privacy... ." Chief Justice Roberts recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "The existence of a Constitutional right to privacy is long decided but that does not govern the outcome of future litigation of specific facts involving abortion." On the other hand Democrats should not get their shorts all in knots over Roe v Wade because that case did not establish a right to abortion on demand. It overturned a specific criminal abortion law but held: "that this right (of personal privacy) is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation (of abortion)." So the hot button issue is not whether there is a Constitutional right to privacy but how far should it be extended in future cases.
An interesting line of questioning at Senate hearings for the next candidate might be: (1) whether he/she believes that a "Constitutional right to privacy" would preclude government from criminalizing homosexual marriage; (2) whether government would be precluded from criminalizing marriage between brother and sister (or brother and brother)? (3) could a person be prevented from marrying his or her cat?
People say Constitutional law is boring! Man, you could bottle this stuff and sell it.
Jim Clark is president of the Incline Village/Crystal Bay Republican Advocates. He graduated from Loyola University School of Law in 1972 and was admitted to the State Bar of California the same year
posted by professor rat at 9:39 PM
<< Home