Boogahz wrote:even authors of the bill protecting undercover operatives (from '82?)has said that she did not fit the profile of an undercover agent under the law. Besides, her covert status has nothing to do with Libby's conviction. He was not charged with outing her as an agent. People want him to be held responsible for the leak without taking him to court for the leak itself. He was not found guilty of outing her.
The authors of the bill don't have anything to do with anything. Once the bill was signed into law, it became illegal to knowingly disclose information revealing the identity of a covert U.S. operative. Whether the present case fits the description of 50 U.S.C. §421 is a matter for the prosecution to bring before a court and a judge or jury to decide, not (retired Republican) legislators.
Whether treason was committed is also an issue for the courts to decide. While outing this particular CIA agent was treacherous, underhanded, self-serving, vindictive, snide and perhaps evil, it may or may not have been treason. The present problem is that the law may have been broken and nobody is doing anything more about it. And really, why would they? Those responsible for trying the case were hired by those who broke the law. The precedent has already been set that disloyalty will be met with termination.
People lied, then told lies about the lies they told, then lied about who else might have lied about the lie, all to cover up the fact that someone told the truth when they shouldn't have. The fact that nobody gives a fuck is symptomatic of our collective cynicism. The fact that some don't think that there was any wrong-doing is symptomatic of an even larger problem: blind ignorance.
