E-mail reply from Tony Blankley (Wash. Times) about treason & Hersch/Novak

[roguevalley]

I wrote to Tony Blankley of the Washington Times about his trashing of Seymour Hersch, calling him a traitor all the while ignoring Bob Novak:

From: "me" <.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:20:29 -0900 (AKT)
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: your column about Mr. Hersch

I read your column and after I got through laughing, I just chalked it up to the same old hypocrisy that the right always has. You can chide Mr. Hersch for what he does but the deafening silence about Bob Novak outing a NOC and lowering our security by removing her services from our country's defense betrays your pious maunderings.

You will forgive me and most of the rest of the world if I guffaw.

Roguevalley, guffawing.

I got this back. He must have been exercised in his emotions due to the typos, etc:

Actually, I wrote an editorial immediately after that story broke calling for full prosecution of all guilty parties. With Novak¹s case, there was a specific statute that applied to revealing covert agents. to be guilty under it, a person had to either be in authorized possession of the information (in other words, a government employee --not a private citizen), or the publisher of the information had to be a regular publisher of such information. Novak had never published any other names--so he probably would not fall under the statute. that statute was enacted in the 1980¹s specifically in response to a rogue former CIA agent who was publishing names of many agents and a newsletter publisher who was publishing all his information.

NEWS TO ME. ANYONE know what the definitions truly are for TREASON?

Also, subsection a, which I quoted in teh column doe snot require a sate of war to exist.

[Hobarticus]

1. Doe snot? Good God, man, what does it MEAN???

Tony, take it easy and write a letter that people can understand.

[notadmblnd]

7. must be some sort of code they

use to send secrect messages?

[htuttle]

2. He's technically correct, but incomplete (as usual)

The statute he cites is basically as he describes it. It was passed to stop former CIA agent Phil Agee from publishing his magazine that often outed CIA agents in Latin America.

So technically, Novak may not have violated the statute, depending on the interpretation of 'regularly' (since he's done it at least twice).

HOWEVER, what he's ignoring is the fact that somewhere, there is a Senior Administration Official (according to Novak) who told Novak, and they would definitely violated the statute.

Short answer: Novak gets off, but whoever told Novak violated the law.

At least that's how I understand it.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Just because he didn't technically break a law

doesn't mean he is not a traitor.

[htuttle]

9. True

[No Exit]

8. Okay, well.... then, has Novak been cooperative in helping

the authorities to find this senior administration official?

Not from what I've read, he hasn't.

So if this senior administration official committed this crime, and Novak is helping him to hide his culpability, then isn't Novak aiding and abetting (after the fact)?

[fob]

11. According to tony blankstare, the law requires the person to be "in

authorized possession of the information" (which tony equates to mean "government employee") and if what you state is true regarding "FORMER" CIA agent Phil Agee, then someone wrote a law that wouldn't work against the intended target!

there was a specific statute that applied to revealing covert agents. to be guilty under it, a person had to either be in authorized possession of the information (in other words, a government employee --not a private citizen), or the publisher of the information had to be a regular publisher of such information. Novak had never published any other namesLIAR! nofacts has done this at LEAST once before--so he probably would not fall under the statute. that statute was enacted in the 1980¹s specifically in response to a rogue former CIA agent who was publishing names of many agents and a newsletter publisher who was publishing all his information.

So, ToeKnee, where exactly do you get your info that "in authorized possession" means "government employee"? Conversely does that mean if you have "UNauthorized possession" you can do whatever you want with it?

[atreides1]

3. US Code Title 18

Check out US Code, Title 18 Section 2381 and 2382

[DemoTex]

4. I am sate of war.

However, I cannot imagine doe snot being sate of war.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Excellent letter Roguevalley,

I wish more of us would write!

I have noticed that the majority of these "journalists aka Presstitutes" who respond to letters really don't know how to type. I have received letters from the likes of Fineman, Alter, Currey, J. Golberg and others which are filled with typos, no capitalization (not even "I" which shows up as "i"), and responses that border on the incoherent.

What's that all about? Are there interns in their drawers doing the actual writing of the articles....or are they just posting and pasting the articles of others, and passing it off as their own.

Apart from that, doesn't that guy Blankely drink too much alcohol? Could that be why he can't spell or/and type and/or think straight?

[justiceischeap]

10. They're called Editors

And obviously they don't use them for their emails.

It's funny, where I work any email going out to the general public always has to go to an editor first and we're not even media.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Looks like a little drinking going on today at Moonie Central

What does the Good Father False Prophet have to say about alcohol anyway?

[gratuitous]

13. Wow, don't they get technical

When it's a real or imagined Democratic transgression, close is good enough: Hang 'em for being traitors!

When it's a conservative or a Republican or part of their elite, well, okay, so a few people might have died and died horribly, but you can't prove that they "knowingly" or "willingly" broke the law, or some other solipsistic dodge about unprovable mindsets or intentions, which naturally lets their buddies off the hook.