Beyond politics
Please read this guest commentary authored by former US Senator Gary Hart. Hart has much experience with intelligence matters. For Democrats this may be a way to help bring the "Evil Empire" down. But lest not forget, the leaking of intelligence matters results in set-backs and possibly deaths of agents and assets.
Thank you to the Denver Post.
the crime in outing of CIA agent
By Gary HartDenver Post Guest Commentary
It is now fashionable among columnists supporting the Bush administration, New York Times journalist Judith Miller, Robert Novak and the increasing network of senior administration officials implicated in the Valerie Plame Wilson outing to say, "So what? Where's the crime?"
The federal statute making it a criminal penalty to knowingly divulge the identity of anyone working undercover for the Central Intelligence Agency was not enacted in a vacuum. In the early 1970s, in part as a result of the radicalization of individuals and groups over the Vietnam War, a former CIA employee named Philip Agee wrote a book revealing the identities of several dozen CIA employees, many under deep cover and some including agency station chiefs in foreign capitals.
Many of the countries in which those CIA employees were working themselves had extremely radical and violent elements stirred to hatred over their opposition to America's conduct in the Vietnam War. So, by revealing their identities, Agee had knowingly and willingly placed these American citizens at risk. Violent consequences were predictable.
Richard Welch, a brilliant Harvard-educated classicist, had been stationed in Greece as CIA station chief only a few months before he was murdered, by a radical Greek terrorist organization called the 17th of November, in the doorway of his house in Athens on Dec. 23, 1975. Had Agee not divulged his name, there is every reason to believe that Welch would be alive today after decades of loyal service to his country.
Largely as a result of Agee's perfidy and Welch's unnecessary death, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative. It carries penalties of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for each offense. There are those who dismiss the crime by saying, "Oh, Wilson only had a desk job." That is not a defense under this felony statute. It is for the CIA, not Karl Rove or Robert Novak, to determine who requires identity protection and who does not.
The political irony of all this is that conservative elements in America have always proclaimed themselves more concerned than anyone else with national security, the sanctity of classified information, protection of sources, support for our intelligence and military services, and so on. At radical times in our past, irresponsible leftist groups thought it was their duty to try to reveal the names of CIA agents. Now, under a conservative administration, it is these conservative national security champions who are saying, with regard to the "outing" of a CIA undercover officer, "Where's the crime?"
There is further irony in the fact that now the premier intelligence agency of the United States, the CIA, is in utter disarray. Morale is desperately low. Many of the best career officers are leaving. As the source of unbiased professional intelligence, the CIA has been diminished and pushed aside by the Department of Defense. This at a time when it is critical to national security to have the best possible intelligence to protect us from terrorism.
I served on the first Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee in the late 1970s and have continued to be a strong believer in and supporter of the CIA. I deplore those who want to diminish it, politicize it, or require it to produce bogus intelligence it would not otherwise produce simply to fit some preconceived political or ideological agenda. In almost every case where the CIA has malfunctioned, it did so under pressure from one political administration or another.
So, there's the crime. To casually and willfully endanger the life of an undercover CIA agent is a felony. You either believe in taking the laws of the United States seriously or you do not. Citizens - even highly placed ones - do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey and which they will not. Miller and her publisher may think she's a hero, but I don't. It is well established that there is no First Amendment protection for a journalist or anyone else to withhold evidence of a crime.
There is one final irony to this story. On Christmas Eve in 1975, I got a call at my home from the director of the CIA, William Colby. He asked if I would intervene with the White House to obtain presidential approval to have Welch buried at Arlington National Cemetery, a hero fallen in service to his country. I quickly called President Ford's chief of staff on Colby's behalf and made the request. Within two hours, the president had agreed to sign the order permitting Welch to be buried at Arlington.
The chief of staff's name was Richard Cheney.
Former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart lives in Kittredge.
Beef brisket will taste so much better...
...after the Sox win. For those of you not on the call, here's what happened.
When Sox win TYD sends
2 lbs. of Beef Brisket
Cowboy hat signed by TYD officers and members
If Sox lose YDI sends
2 Lou Malnati pizzas
The head of the IL delegation wears a Houston Astro's Hat in Phoenix
A Houston Astro's T-Shirt signed by YDI officers and members
Conference Call at 5pm Today!!
The Young Democrats of Illinois is challenging the Texas Young Democrats. When our Chicago White Sox beat their Houston Astro's they will send us some goodies. Join the call.
5pm Conf. call 1-712-580-8020 Participant Code: 080671
Indictments Acoming!! pt. 2
There is a buzz in Washington. If the heat gets too close to Cheney he will RESIGN! Please see
www.politicalwire.com. I had an e-mail dialogue with a friend who has great political savy. See what we said.
Indictments acoming!
Please read any national media outlet. Everyone is suspecting indictments will come soon. Additionally, some suspect that the Feds (Patrick Fitzgerald) have corroborating witnesses and that Rove may have sold-out Scooter (Cheney's Chief of Staff).
And the truth shall set you free!
Even though I believe in a frim foreign policy, I also believe in a transparent foreign policy. Please read the article below, courtesy of the Financial Times.
/
Print article Email articleCheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19
Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.
In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”
Transcript: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
Click hereMr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.
It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.
“If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”
The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.
Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.
“He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."
Among his other charges:
■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”
■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.
■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.
Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.
“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”
http://www.newamerica.net/EMAIL ARTICLEPRINT ARTICLE
YDCC Meeting
YDCC OCTOBER GENERAL MEETING
HOSTED BY -
THE 28TH WARD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005
GARFIELD PARK OBSERVATORY
300 N. CENTRAL PARK AVENUE
7PM
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS?
CONTACT: AJA @ 773-957-4920
Omar @ 312-296-4071
Proud to be a South Sider
Well the Sox have 4 more games until they win the World Series. Any thoughts or comments regarding the team's chances. Any one with a hook-up on World Series tickets?
Google- The best search engine for Democrats
1. Go to Google
2. Type FAILURE
3. See the first entry
What's on your mind?
Let's have a free for all. Whatever is on your mind, let it out. Sports, sex, religion, politics, favorite food etc. No holds barred.
Young philanthropitsts/ Starting a 501(c)3
I have a friend who wants to start a scholarship for young people from his old high school. He wants to form a non-for-profit in order to receive the best tax benefits. Anyone out there have experience doing this, if so, let us know how to start a 501(c)3.
Job Opportunity
I'm looking for an experienced ad salesperson. Someone who can handle working independently, landing multiple-week contracts for print ads in a liberal political tabloid in St. Louis. Potential advertisers can include small businesses, non-profits, high-traffic websites, political campaigns, PACs, etc. If you know someone that might fit this description, or you are that person, please contact me as soon as possible. Pay is salary plus commission. Relocation to the St. Louis area is not necessary.
Antonio D. French
www.adfrench.comwww.stlargus.comwww.pubdef.net(314) 779-9958 cell
(314) 518-2364 office
(314) 367-3429 fax
Stop asking me all these questions! Read the following.
People are asking me about the Supreme Court. As a future lawyer my insight is limited. As a political operative I am 100% anti-Bush: his policies, his appointments and his politics. Please read this column courtesy of
www.theweek.com. I think it offers a lot of insight regarding the Court.
The power of the chief justice John Roberts this week took his seat as the 17th chief justice of the United States.
Exactly what does a chief justice do?
How does the Constitution define the job?It doesn’t. In creating the three branches of government, the Founding Fathers said very little about the Supreme Court—and even less about the chief justice. The title “chief justice” appears only once in the Constitution, and that is in a section setting out procedures for impeachment of the president: “When the President of the United States is tried [by the Senate], the Chief Justice shall preside.” When John Jay presided over the first Supreme Court in 1790, it was a weak, ill-defined entity. So over the course of two centuries, Congress, the federal judiciary, and the chief justices themselves have had to carve out the job description.What are the chief justice’s duties? Today, 53 duties are spelled out in federal law. Most of them ceremonial, such as presiding over presidential inaugurations, and administrative, such as serving as head of the Judicial Conference, the administrative body that sets rules and policies governing federal court operations. (For these extra duties, the chief justice is paid about $9,000 more than the eight associate justices, with a total annual salary of $203,000.) But by statute and by tradition, the chief justice plays his most important role behind the scenes, in shaping the court’s agenda.
How much power will Roberts really have?Less than the title would suggest: He’s a team leader more than a boss, and cannot push a recalcitrant court in a direction the other eight justices do not want it to go. But if he possesses strong personal and management skills, he will be far more than just one of nine votes. The chief justice’s influence begins even before a case is argued. Each year, the Supreme Court receives about 7,000 appeals of lower court rulings; the high court hears only about 80. It’s the chief justice who (with ample help from law clerks) compiles the initial list of cases the court should consider. He also leads the weekly closed-door “conferences,” in which justices make these decisions by an oral vote. During these conferences, the chief justice speaks first—thus having a chance to frame the cases, and the legal issues involved, as he sees them.
What role does he play in deciding cases?He has no special influence over other justices, but if the chief justice votes along with the majority, he gets an important privilege: He decides who will write the majority opinion. (If not, the senior justice in the majority makes that decision.) The tone and language of the opinions are critical, for it is through them that rulings can become narrow, or set a broad, historic precedent. So the chief justice usually assigns the majority opinion to himself, or to the justice who most closely shares his views. Chief justices also use the assignment process to cultivate other justices, and to forge ideological alliances with them. How have other chief justices used their power?Some have left greater marks than others. The nation’s fourth chief justice, John Marshall, was easily the boldest. At a time when the court had little power, he wrote the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws passed by Congress and pronounce final judgment on their constitutionality. During his record 34-year tenure (1801–1835), Marshall firmly cemented the power of the judicial branch—and established the chief justice as one of the most powerful positions in the federal government. Chief Justice Earl Warren also greatly expanded the court’s power; from 1953 to 1969, the Warren court declared public school segregation unconstitutional, and greatly expanded civil liberties and rights. Other chief justices have been less influential, including Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee who presided over the court from 1969 to 1986. Burger was viewed as pompous and egotistical by the other justices; his fellow conservative William Rehnquist and Rehnquist’s law clerk at the time, John Roberts, often mocked him behind his back.
So what makes a great chief justice?A mix of a keen legal intelligence, leadership skills, and pragmatism. Unpretentious and good-natured, John Marshall had a gift for building a consensus and often spoke for a unanimous court. The gregarious judge fostered bipartisan friendships and good relations between justices (he insisted they all room together in the same boardinghouse). By contrast, Marshall’s successor, Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), was reticent, stubborn, and determined to embarrass the Lincoln administration. Taney—who ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks had no rights and could never be citizens—watched a collegial court break apart.
What kind of boss will Roberts be?It’s anybody’s guess. Most analysts predict that Roberts’ intelligence, integrity, and humility will sit well with the other justices. But the court is sharply divided between conservatives and liberals, and Roberts assumes the role of chief justice at a very contentious time in U.S. history. During his tenure on the court, the 50-year-old Roberts and his colleagues may well decide whether to overturn Supreme Court rulings on abortion and affirmative action, and will almost certainly set new precedent on such emotional issues as same-sex marriage, the public observance of religion, and human cloning. For that reason alone, Roberts may one day take his place among the most influential chief justices in history.
This is sad, I honestly think this story has two victims
www.cnn.comBrooklyn girl, 9, admits killing playmate
Plunged knife into friend's chest in dispute over toy
Saturday, October 8, 2005; Posted: 6:17 a.m. EDT
NEW YORK (AP) -- A 9-year-old girl pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter Friday, admitting she fatally stabbed her 11-year-old playmate after a tug-of-war over a rubber ball went sour.
Sox-tober
How far will the Sox go during the playoffs? Tell me what round you think they will be eliminated, if at all?
Words
On a lighter note, I participated in a chain e-mail titled "One Word". It is not often that I do chain e-mails but this one was interesting. I received an e-mail from my friend, public school teacher J. Alexander. It asked me to describe her in one word, retrun the e-mail to her and forward it on to my friends. Below I list the responses. I have not attached the names, maybe I will do that next week. If you have a comment (your own word or comment on a word posted) I want to read it.
This will be fun.
Admirable
Ambitious
Ambitious
Ambitious
Ambitious
Anal-retentive
Clean
Confident
Consistent
Dedicated
Determined
Diligent
Eclectic
Fat
Focused
Funny
Funny
Individualistic
Love
marvwondermazing
Motivated
Nuts
Persistent
Practical
Relentless
Talkative
Talkative
