Comments for H&I Fires* 30, MAY 2007 We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:01:46 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification H&I Fires* 30, MAY 2007 Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place... ******************************** A twofer on things I might not have gotten right in the past: 1) Was Plame on the NOC list at the time? (Cassie, anything you can say about it? Being who you are and what you do might give us peons(zugzug) a chance to cut thru the bureaucratese.) 2) Verschärfte Vernehmung. Would similarities between... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html Wed, 30 May 2007 23:10:24 -0600 Comment from hypnoid on 2007-06-01 Re: the shooter vs space aliens "some folks..you just can't reach" Nonsense. This guy was mentally ill with a serious but treatable condition. Modern medical treatment could have helped this guy and probably prevented the tragedy. "Chlorine in the gene pool" may sometimes have a place, but this isn't one of them. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60623 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60623 Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:07:07 -0600 Comment from Cassandra on 2007-06-01 It seems to me that you're not understanding something really basic here, ry. Your identity (the fact that you work for the CIA) being "secret" is a binary thing. It is either secret or not secret. Once it's "blown", it is blown forever. Period. You can't go "in and out" of being secret - that's BS - like, this week I'm going to admit I work for the CIA to this group of people and drive in and out of the front gate of Langley, next week I'll travel to Europe for 3 days and use my super-seekrit identity. That is stupid. Keep in mind who they're trying to keep it from - OTHER SPIES. Do ya think maybe other spies might... um, I dunno... watch people who they already know work for the CIA? Just a thought there, ry. This is common sense - she is making a ludicrous argument and people are not even questioning it: "I was secret PART of the time and not secret PART of the time". Yeah. And the part of the time you weren't secret no one bothered to take down your name, hon. Especially since you're married to an ex-Ambassador, which would automatically put you on any intelligence service's watch list ANYWAY. Again, duh. *sigh* And finally, you are conflating classified with covert for the purposes of the IIPA and they are not the same. At all. The IIPA was very narrowly drafted to avoid prosecution of journalists and people who disclosed a "covert" agent, not knowing they were covert. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60606 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60606 Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:54:56 -0600 Comment from ry on 2007-05-31 Like this in another comments section at SWWBO's. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60587 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60587 Thu, 31 May 2007 13:55:35 -0600 Comment from Maggie on 2007-05-31 MajMike - Are you trying to distract me? That's fine, I am highly distracable. But tanks aren't my thing. Try harder. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60583 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60583 Thu, 31 May 2007 11:31:24 -0600 Comment from Cassandra on 2007-05-31 only part of the time. You either conceal it ALL OF THE TIME OR NOT AT ALL. I would think this would be obvious. And for the purposes of the statute, Ry, Plame's employer needs to be the one doing this, and letting her drive right through the front gate of Langely really doesn't cut it. Also there is STILL the foreign posting requirement (have you read the statute?) and I'm not sure that TDY qualifies here. Again, Victoria Toensing is one of the people who wrote the statute and it is beyond amusing that every time she tried to open her mouth to answer a question before Congress Henry Waxman cut her off. Methinks he was afraid he'd hear something he didn't want introduced into the official record. Like, perhaps, the truth.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60577 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60577 Thu, 31 May 2007 09:06:38 -0600 Comment from Cassandra on 2007-05-31 why wasn't Richard Armitage charged under the IIPA?]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60575 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60575 Thu, 31 May 2007 08:59:39 -0600 Comment from MajMike on 2007-05-31 blah blah blah. ry; maggie: i think we all need to focus back in on what is really important about all this: driving tanks is FUN. try the bobsled run down from Wildflecken to the railhead when the cobblestones are all sleeted over with ice and steering is mostly theoretical. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60572 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60572 Thu, 31 May 2007 08:20:46 -0600 Comment from Maggie on 2007-05-31 Ry - You need to sleep more before you post. I can't even follow some of that. If it's important to you that you now have official CIA confirmation of Plame's covert status and you can now correct something you feel you said in error.....fine. My point was that Dems tried to make this a national security breach. It wasn't. When I said not to throw Libby under the bus, that wasn't aimed at you in particular and I should have noted that. His name was starting to come up in the commnets. It is *not* partisan to defend a man whose career was ruined for a perceived crime. It is not ratting to defend yourself from a lie. Joe Wilson lied. He said that Cheney sent him to Africa. He lied and people who were in the know corrected that inaccurracy. That is not ratting. The MSM and the anti-Bush crowd have painted this whole incident as a case where "brave Joe Wilson spoke truth to power" and the evil Bushies struck back and ruined his wife's covert career and endangered all her important work with the CIA to do so. Evil, super-villian, Dick Cheney, with thoughtless disregard for national security, exacted heartless revenge on the brave, ex-ambassador and his blonde, secret-agent wife. That is not what happened. My point in flaming the memo was to say that this new memo didn't change anything in that case. The memo doesn't change anything for me. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60570 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60570 Thu, 31 May 2007 08:07:08 -0600 Comment from ry on 2007-05-31 I don't know where to start first. (Flips coin) Casey. I find your use of the 'Invoke Nazis Lose the Deabte Rule' to be flawed. Mostly because of the bait and switch you employ. Yes, it does cite things like outright ignoring of injured parties, illegal since the First Geneva Convention, but also things like time and sensory dep constitute illegal actions. The ignoring of injured parties is irrelevant to the discussion(ergo the claim of bait and switch rhetorical device). At issue is the things we know have been done: stress positions, temperature manipulation to sap endurance, the chest slap, etc. The point is that they have a 60 year old legal precedent defining certain practices, things we've done, as illegal. Look at the Norweigan case. YOu may say that it isn't binding international law, since I'm not sure at this point if it was something akin to Nuremberg, but finding these actions to be akin to warcrimes, in a court of freakin' law(not just asserting it on DU or at DK), means something bro. They cite specifically the use of cold rooms, man, which HAS been documented as being done by US forces. If you believe in the rule of law, stare decesis, and all that it should make you at least want to rethink the whole thing and see if it's still kosher. You may also say that it's irrelevant because the people it's being done to are breakers of the GC rules on what constitutes a legal combatant. Maybe. That's true for some, but surely not all. Def'n not Taliban fighters who fought for a recognized gov't and operated as much as a normal army(remember, as little as a black armband is enough to satisfy the GC to make one a legal combatant). The additional protocols, which the US hasn't signed, definitely do extend said protections to every tom, dick and harry though(which is namby pamby). But some of those people that have been subjected to such are definitely legal combatants(two sides in a civil war, so long as they are responsible to some higher authority and wear distinguishing garb of some sort, are legal combatants). That presents a problem. So I hope you recognize right quick I'm not making the 'it doesn't work and ergo evil' argument. But saying, 'Shnikees, they ruled such things illegal 60 years ago. Crap. Now what do we do?' Casey, apparently you haven't hung around here for very long or paid much attention to me. One of my better friends and mentors is a twenty year intel officer. I've taken my lead largely from him on this issue. He's largely been in disagreement with the constant drum beat that 'energetic interrogation techniques' are ineffective. Personal experience he says. And I believe him. I've looked him in the eye as he said it, and what I saw was good enough for me. But to the legality? Dude. It's there apparently. I didn't want it to be. But being honest means I have to admit that it very well could be illegal based on what Sullivan brought up. That isn't namby pamby, that's honoring the Law. I would prefer that it wasn't a 60 year precident, but it is. Carpet bombing is effective too. It's also illegal in certain circumstance and is almost never used anymore---because of the problems of legality amoung others(pgm efficiency proll'y being the biggest). There's a reason why 'Bomber' Harris(sometimes called 'Butcher') and LeMay are right lucky that said rules didn't come into effect until after WW2---their strategy was deemed a war crime. So too here. Guess what, it could very well have been ruled illegal 60 years ago(namby pamby being a seperate argument). That doesn't change that I think it effective(and have annecdotal evidence of it so being). Just saying that GC and LoLW says we can't use means deemed illegal. I like being a white hat. I like living in a country that wears one. We don't simply go out and use the 5% sol'n (just carpet bomb the entire ME until there's only 5% of the pop left) even though it would be damn effective in cutting down on ME terrorism because it's something only blackhats would do. Because civilized people have deemed it evil. So too this. It may be namby pamby, but it's what white hats accept the rules to be. Yes, I have a farkin' clue about what SERE is. Matter of fact I have defended simulated rapes in SERE because it should be as realistic(ask AFSis, since she was about ready to decapitate me over it a few months ago.). But remember what the R stands for. Resistance. Resistance to torture and psychological attacks to get you to cough up info or amenable to being used as a tool by the enemy. We do that because we anticipate the enemy to do things ILLEGAL to break them(at least in part we have them do SERE for that, at least the torture parts). Not because such things have the good house keeping seal of approval of prisoner treatment. It's done to keep them, in part, from cracking to torturous practices by attenuation. (So the, 'do you think DoD torures our own people' canard simply doesn't work my good man.) If a court of law has defined something as little as the chest slap to be torture then we're stuck with that, who gives a farq if the Nazis did it, or the Sovs, or the Khmer Rouge, or anyone else. I kept that because that was somewhat the thrust of Sullivan(which I could give a rat's farkin' @55 about, honestly. But I also SPECIFICALLY said it was the legal issue that was the concern(maybe you missed that?) It's the legal precedent that has me worried about whether I've been in the right arguing in favor of energetic interrogation tactics and whether the country was in the right to employ them.). Hence the 'things I may have been wrong about'. We can either choose to continue to be whitehats, or not. Yes, at some point civilization may become overly touchy feely and then die. That's not what I'm talking about---though you seem to assert that it is the only issue here. Is it or is it not illegal is where I started and where I ended. I know it to be effective, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Being in resonance with the law, which, you know most times, makes one a whitehat. I choose to be a whitehat, not grey. ++++++++++++++++++ Oh my coppy @55. How you get from questioning whether my belief that Plame was never covert to Scooter Libby says LOADS about you and little about me. Where did I throw Libby under the bus? I point out that,hey, factually she was sometimes covert, which is a far sight different than what we've all been telling each other, and I'm throwing Libby under the bus? Oh please. Check your partisanship compensation circuits(if they're faulty I think BCR has spares hidden around here somewhere(I burn thru mine rather quickly). Warning, they're surplus. She keeps the good stuff for herself.). Does it matter whether she was NOC or not? Sure. If one cares about deciding positions on facts. That it turns out the situatin of covertness not being binary seems to matter. It was news to me. I've heard lots of people claim the CIA said this and that. This is the first time it's come out, in available to the public, written from that yes indeedy boys and girls she did at times operate covertly. YOu know, not simply being assertion by talking heads and partisans, but actual public record. I just love all the non-sequitors being employed. Oh, Libby wasn't charged under the statute for outing operatives(relevance to whether or not Plame was NOC? Zero. Also note, not being charged does not cause Plame to not be covert. That's a lot like the ice cream fallacy.). Can my company even declare me to be covert and have it matter in a court of law(What does the survey say, Richard Dawson? YYY(triple x would've tripped the PG-17 filters, and I don't feel like being electrocuted tonight.))? If it floats your boat to call yourself covert, go for it. Just don't expect it to mean much in a court of law since only gov't agencies can bestow that on you(common sense arguments only work when sense is employed, otherwise they're just badly reasoned arguments) And calls for empiricism when when is not employing empirical reasoning themselves seems well, hypocritical. We weren't there, personally observing, so all we have is the public record(or are some now claiming omniscience too?). I feel like Iniego Montoya(I don't think that means what you think it means, Vassiny). Basically you're saying that your opinion, not empirical evidence(a paper trail, for the first time, as far as I know anyway, showing her to be NOC), is all that matters. Sorry, but you ain't Sovreign. The world we live in doesn't work like that. Common sense arguement(you judge if it works): such a conspiracy of going back and creating all these fake documents and such to the effect that Plame was at least NOC operative would have a number in the dozens who would knw about it. Figuring that secrets are secure in inverse proportion to the number of those who know them, and that we haven't heard anyone coming forward and saying it's BS implies to me that it's a real low probability(How many knew of Nixon's Plumbers? 5? And how fast did that come out?). Vanishingly small probability. Like the chance that all my molecules could disassociate(possible, but insanely unlikely). So, either we trust the only empirical evidence we've got, public record(with a vanishingly small chance of there being a conspiracy), or we play on our un-empirical hunches and bad arguments. Your call. I'm sticking to empiricism. She was NOC. That's a fact. Stop there. Anything beyond that is you projecting into the discussion something I never brought. She was NOC. I'm satisfied at that point. I was wrong to say she was never ever covert, because apparently she was(unless you want to rely on bad 'common sense' arguments, hunches, and partisan polictical necessities of her being a fraud.). Why does it complicate things? What does the law say about NOC? Do you hang the guys who out foreign NOC agents? Why yes, I think you do. It complicates things because apparently covertness isn't binary(you're James Bond and therefor not talked about under pain of death, or you're a paper pusher who it doesn't matter if we talk about at all). Who cares if Wilson and Plame were terrible at keeping her ID secret. What does that have to do with the factualness of her being, at times, a covert operative? Abso-farkin'-lutely nothing. I'm not intrested in rationalisations for why it was okay to do this or that. My question on the matter was very binary: Was she or wasn't she? Turns out she was. Factually. Ooops. I was wrong to say otherwise. Many of you can keep on doing the rationalization game all you want, but that wasn't where I was at. I was aking a simpel was she or wasn't she. She was. End of the deal for me. So go ahead, rationalize away about why it was okay to rat out an agent, regardless of her covert status, which is odd, since didn't some of the participants say that ratting was soooooo wrong, as I'm not intersted in it, or Libby or the rest of the whole deal. She was, according to public record, a sometimes covert operative. End of story. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60562 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60562 Thu, 31 May 2007 00:14:57 -0600 Comment from Pat on 2007-05-30 I remember some interesting times driving an M113 in Grafenwohr during a rainstorm. Every time I even breathed on the tiller bars, I was careening from one side of the blacktrack to the other. It didn't seem like fun at the time. Pat http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60561 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60561 Wed, 30 May 2007 22:34:39 -0600 Comment from Neffi on 2007-05-30 Hey now Jon, there be a few of us DATS out here...! And we never *trained* to drive on ice but *did* have the occasional experience with it- mud and stone will throw a track but ice and snow will never harm us! But we did get frozen to the ground once outside Coburg, after staying overnight in a marshy place... TG for schnapps! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60560 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60560 Wed, 30 May 2007 21:35:02 -0600 Comment from Jon The Mechanic on 2007-05-30 And when you do throw the track, don't come crying to me. I am NOT going to help you put it back on your road wheels, no matter how much you beg and plead... Damn C-DATS. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60554 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60554 Wed, 30 May 2007 19:58:53 -0600 Comment from Maggie on 2007-05-30 he asked Libby whether Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger. Cooper said Libby responded, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or "Yeah, I've heard something like that, too." If you want to talk about attention whores.....Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame come to mind. So Ry, if your point was that the CIA has memoes and documents "calling" Valerie Plame "covert", fine. They're not exactly news. My point is that she did not conduct herself wholly in a manner consistent with being "covert". Neighbors said they didn't know what she did for a living.......most of my neighbors don't know I work for a medical equipment company. Does it make me a "covert-medical-equipment-company-operative"? ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60552 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60552 Wed, 30 May 2007 18:59:39 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-05-30 Welcome back, safe and sound, Jay! That said - let's talk about that blocking in email! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60551 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60551 Wed, 30 May 2007 17:04:04 -0600 Comment from Jay on 2007-05-30 Glad to be back where your blog isn't blocked! :) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60550 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60550 Wed, 30 May 2007 16:37:51 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-05-30 We have to secure the borders over there so we don't have to secure em over here. Where can I sign up to secure Iraq's borders?? At your local Armed Forces recruiting office (focus on Army and Marines) would be one place... Of course, the Surrender Party would have to *allow* you to do that.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60549 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60549 Wed, 30 May 2007 15:56:05 -0600 Comment from acroso on 2007-05-30 http://www.slate.com/id/2166678/ ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60547 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60547 Wed, 30 May 2007 15:44:10 -0600 Comment from NevadaDailySteve on 2007-05-30 She was a sometimes covert operative and that complicates things legally greatly. Why? The only legal action was against Scooter Libby and that wasn't about him leaking her name.
No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents.
I'm not a big believer in letting leakers go unpunished but I have a big time problem saying Libby should be hung out to dry for three years when others (Sandy Pantsburgler comes to mind) who do something far more dangerous to the security of this country get a slap on the wrist. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. To me that means that no matter what your political affiliation you should receive the same punishment as a person of the other party caught committing the same crime, no more and no less.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60544 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60544 Wed, 30 May 2007 14:12:24 -0600 Comment from Casey Tompkins on 2007-05-30 read Sully's post? For one thing Auntie Andy whips out the guilt-by-association trick by citing Nazi methods of beatings and non-treatment of wounded or sick prisoners, then alluding to Gitmo. He doesn't actually come out and say BushitlerCo did those things, but the implication is clear. Next, is everything the Nazis did up for criticism? It sounds over here something like "if the Nazis (or Germans) did it, it must be evil!" Lefties tried the same tack back during the Cold War by observing that Soviet generals and American generals both studied the same "classics," as if that made both countries morally comparable. Apparently the meme now is: "if the stinkin' Nazis used sleep deprivation and water-boarding, it MUST be torture!!. Feh. I suppose that means locking people up in cells and asking them hard questions is torture as well, since the Nazis did those things. Is yelling now torture? Or messing with a subject's head? Actually, that last answer seems to be "yes," after they busted the woman interrogator who smeared red ink on the face of one abusive prisoner. ;( In fact Sully clearly conflates aggresive interrogation with verschärfte Vernehmung, despite the Norwegian law report which frequently cites regular beatings and non-treatment of injuries. I would truly love to hear all about the beatings, abuse of hurt prisoners, and genuine torture performed at Gitmo or other US facilities. Let me remind you that our armed forces regularly uses many of these techniques on our own men and women, especially SERE students. Do you claim that the DoD is torturing our own people? ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60543 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60543 Wed, 30 May 2007 14:02:23 -0600 Comment from ry on 2007-05-30 Maggs, did you read the pdf file attached to the story? Facts are facts, babe. CIA says she was, at times, under cover for some of her work. It isn't so binary as many would like(you're either Bond or a paper pusher with paper pushers being totally unclassified personell). She may have been, at times, a covert agent. That's a complication. Did joe Wilson cause this? Yes. Did he f' up and break a bunch of rules(what happened to not narking here?) and that directly lead to this whole situation? Yes. BUt facts are facts. She was a sometimes covert operative and that complicates things legally greatly. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60539 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60539 Wed, 30 May 2007 13:18:31 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-05-30 I hadda good time driving an M47 in Germany... magneto checks under a bridge were always a hoot. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60535 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60535 Wed, 30 May 2007 11:17:35 -0600 Comment from MajMike on 2007-05-30 the only beastie in our inventory that i've ever been able to make it move like that is my all time "favorite for driving" M551A1. fun fun fun. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60533 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60533 Wed, 30 May 2007 10:59:59 -0600 Comment from Cricket on 2007-05-30 Ward Churchill's reaction is a two edged sword: If the university fires him, they're stupid. If they keep him, they are even more stoopid. So, maybe he needs to join the intelligent and principled homeless under the bridge. Got it. And people wonder why I want to go back and get my degree. I would think more of the university for canning his sorry tuckus than his so called assessment of their collective intelligence. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60532 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60532 Wed, 30 May 2007 10:59:04 -0600 Comment from Maggie on 2007-05-30 Ex-CIA officer called on to explain varied accounts Senator: Plame's versions add to 'misinformation']]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60530 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60530 Wed, 30 May 2007 09:53:23 -0600 Comment from Maggie on 2007-05-30 No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents. No crime. No conspiracy. Hit the bricks, Blondie! ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60529 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60529 Wed, 30 May 2007 09:48:59 -0600 Comment from NevadaDailySteve on 2007-05-30 Where do you go to sign up for the Swedish Army? That looks like serious fun. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60528 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/hi_fires_30_may.html#comment-60528 Wed, 30 May 2007 09:43:46 -0600