Also - lets not forget that there was no crime in "leaking" her name. She was not undercover nor had she served undercover in the requisite period of time.
What? Yes, she was, and yes she did.
The
CIA themselves said Plame was covert....
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
"At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
Even if Libby had said Plame worked for the CIA, she didn't meet criteria for the law protecting covert agents.
Protection only goes for covert agents operating overseas. (She hadn't been living overseas for 5 years.)
This is false. Here's the
Intelligence Identities Protect Act of 1982. She was covert and she was protected under this Act. And, not that it matters, she travelled overseas seven times between January 2002 and July 2003.
Also, the leak of her name also
exposed a front company of the CIA, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, and leaked the names of other covert agents working under that "company."
Exposing her, and subsequently also the employees of the front company, was a crime. Maybe some of you should actually read about this case instead of listening to FauxNews.
(All of this is taken from this thread....
http://www.christianforums.com/t5636552)