indicted

But I'm not suprised in the least

 

That you can't dispute them?

 

How do you figure? You're the one who failed to dispute it and simply switched back to write a congressman and check a page, I did dispute it, which was not my point. I was hoping by simply looking the info over you could see the 'intent' is where it is at, on the issue of such a case as a CIA officers name being leaked 'illegally' which could cause harm, in the United States to dictate the government policies.

Do I question the current department in charge of these powers integrity? That's not the point, the point is do you see what the law trully states and are you prepared to not question future administrations in charge of their integrity?

 

I take no issue with the Department of Justice. Whether you do or not doesn't change any facts.

 

What facts are those? What facts are you disputing about what I posted? Very confused as you haven't even disputed what I posted as of yet?

 

The ones you cannot dispute. I don't have to dispute the Department of Justice. I don't interpret the law or claim to. I simply took from their site. And you've made no progress towards disputing it.

 

The only thing I can think of is the part where you don't believe that a cia leak could be considered a domestic terrorist act, of which I am not disputing the sites you have listed, in reality they back the case up and you are reading what their very own page states.

You are putting the

As an actual 'addition' which from the way it appears on your opinion you are taking the 'terror' out of context and believing it can only be meant for the actual definition of terror. Is this what you're thinking, if not please explain?

When hoever reading the law you can see where they are getting this from,
the intent is laid out very clearly which is also the definition of domestic terrorism according to the law itself.

There is your intent of which the page speaks of and to get the full definition of a domestic terrorist you simply need to read

 

Perhaps you need to revisit the post, with which you are trying to make an issue out of:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=400266&postcount=47

Was a simple reply and quite accurate. No matter how you try to confuse the issue, it's really quite simple. If you do not consider the United States Department of Justice a credible source, that is something you will have to work out.

 

Actually I am trying to be as nice as possible to show you that you are outright wrong and your failure to even one time actually dispute what I said I think speaks volumes to show I am correct in that assumption.

Actually I believe even your source disputes what you had stated, sorry. If I'm wrong please make the case, you have not even tried to yet.

edit---- or are we arguing different points as I've stated in the case of being charged with a cia leak, not what was actually charged with. Maybe we are on the wrong page here, are we?

 

The case is right there in the original post. Whether you are trying to be nice or not has no bearing. Whether you personally "believe" something or not, doesn't discredit what I posted or the source I used.

You are wrong. The case is stated in the original post with a source provided. You tried to make an issue of it, and have failed in the process.

 

No actually you have not even tried to make a case, I am not wrong, if I am where am I wrong exactly? You are adding their info to the laws, which their info comes directly from the law itself, sorry you can not add it. Even using this it shows exactly what is defined by a domestic terrorist which would match anything that does the following:

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
Leaking an undercover cia agents name #1 is dangerous to multiple lives and #2 breaks laws of the United States.

`
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
Leaking of the Cia agents name in this case was to discredit an official who was looking into accusations of yellow cake in Niger, of which had influence over the civilian population of a country, the United States.

Intent according to not only the law but the quote you had placed for your argument.
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
It did occur primarily in the territory of the United States did it not?

---edit the point is not that it would be, but in the hands of a crafty prosecutor it 'could be' by the laws of how they are written. Do I think they would be? probally not at this time. Could it be attempted by how it's written in the future for examples such as this, it is very possible.

 

I don't have to. I don't disagree with my original comment. It's touching you are trying to defend your friend, gworld, but the comment stands as does the quote from perhaps, the highest reputable source there is.

If you dispute it, you should write the USDJ and tell them so. I don't interpret the law, but I have no problem quoting the highest authority that does.

The issue is yours, my friend, not mine

 

I am not defending, what you stated is incorrect. If it was gworld who had stated it I more than likely would have disputed him as well.

The quote does not make a case, how can you not understand that. Even using the quote it clearly shows what is considered terrorists and intent in the law.

 

um, yea...

It makes a perfectly clear case. Based upon what your friend said about Libby meeting the criteria for being declared a domestic terrorist and based on what the USDJ says about it, he was wrong. It's just difficult for you to accept

 

How is it wrong, please point me through it so I can see the error of my ways. I call gworld on many things so don't even give me that crap

 

Sure, I'd be happy to:

It makes a perfectly clear case. Based upon what your friend said about Libby meeting the criteria for being declared a domestic terrorist and based on what the USDJ says about it, he was wrong. It's just difficult for you to accept

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=400266&postcount=47

Let me know if you need me to point you through it again

 

Yes of which I have already shown step by step where the 'intent' is coming from which is apart of the definition of a domestic terrorist. Your argument does not work, it only bolsters the point I have made.

Gworld would be wrong if you are considering lying under oath, my point as I've stated multiple times would be from if someone was charged with leaking of an under cover CIA agent. He was wrong for the charge he laid out, for the 'if' it was a charge of leaking a CIA agent however I don't see it as being incorrect and believe your quote actually proves it.

---edit I guess in reality I'm disputing both of you at the same time, I was hoping you'd beable to see it without a debate on the subject though, or show me where I was wrong.

 

My argument works exceptionally well, because it directly refutes your friend's position quite well and is directly quoted from a (possibly THE) highest authority, the USDJ.

I've seen nothing that serves to make any valid point from your stand, other than you say so. You've tried in vein to discredit what I said and what the USDJ has said, yet it just doesn't work.

I'm flattered you would give me so much attention, but it's really just common sense. What gworld (your friend) said was inaccurate. I provided a quote from the USDJ that proved such.

Would you like me to point it out again?

 

Again Gworld was incorrect on the lying under oath, do you dispute if it was a CIA leak it could not be considered a 'domestic terrorist' issue? Of which I have already laid it out, using your very own quote to show it could be. Showing how the quote comes from the law etc,

 

Are we reading the same post here? Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?

Lying under oath? Am I missing something from my post that you've taken issue with?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=400266&postcount=47

To which I quoted from the USDJ:

Did anything Libby was charged with (lying to reporters ) appear to be committed with a specified terrorism related intent? The answer is no. Case closed.

Very weak argument, all the way around, hrb. Very weak.