The Medical Racket

Disclaimer: I am a layman, and do not give medical advice. Please do not take my word, or anybody else's, regarding your health. Take responsibility for your health, and do not give it to "experts" or anybody else. Your life is your life, and giving the responsibility for your health to others is a dangerous path. Talk to your doctor, read this essay, research the areas presented here if you feel inclined, but in the end, please make your own decisions. Doctors only know what they are taught, and if they are taught incorrectly, their advice can be less than helpful, and their treatments can kill you. Please do nothing simply because an "expert" or other authority figure tells you to.

Timeline

This essay is overflowing with names, dates and events, and takes an iconoclastic look at today’s medical establishment and how it came to be, while also arguing that legitimate alternative paradigms exist, and far preferable to today’s. Early readers informed me that it could be an overwhelming amount of information to digest, as well as emotionally trying. This timeline is designed to make the reading experience easier, so readers can refer to names, dates and events in the larger scheme of this essay. The early human data is controversial in many quarters, and this timeline hews more toward today’s orthodox theories. The early population estimates, until the modern age, are probably within 25% of the actual population, at least as far as orthodoxy is concerned. The timeline is broken into two pieces, to 1491, directly below, and from 1492 onward. There are far more links to this medical essay from the 1492 onward piece. This timeline is an abbreviated version of the site timeline.
=================
I can reproduce the whole site here, except that it would take a lot of time, but would do it someday, later. Follow the link on a week end and find for yourself how you have been ripped off. Theres more from another site which I will do now, in a moment.

===================================================
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=1681
AUGUST 10, 2005. Here is another backgrounder for my upcoming tele-workshop, DISEASE HOAXES AND HEALING EXERCISES. Click on the link below the green and blue painting on this page.

***************************************************************

MURDER AT THE US NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI).

Daniel Haley's brilliant book, Politics in Healing, recounts how NCI's 1991 clinical trial of the innovative and "alternative" cancer medicine, hydrazine sulfate (HS), was rigged.

Rigged to fail.

A spectacularly promising medicine, HS had shown good results in trials at Harbor/UCLA hospital and in Russia. NCI felt obligated to test the drug. But there was a catch.

The drug's discoverer, Dr. Joseph Gold, had found that HS reacted badly if patients were taking other drugs, especially tranquilizers. Several warnings were given to NCI before it began its test. The warnings were explicit. Patients could DIE if they were taking tranquilizers.

It turned out that none of the NCI patients were warned about this. It turned out that 94% of those patients were in fact on tranquilizers.

Barry Tice, an investigator for the US General Accounting Office (GAO), looked into the NCI trial of hydrazine sulfate after it was over. He called Dr. Gold and told him he had found a "smoking gun." There was an internal NCI memo which
showed that NCI was well aware of the problems involved in the drug combinations.

The GAO did not back up its own investigator. The final GAO report on the NCI clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate simply accused NCI of sloppy bookkeeping.

In the June 1995 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a letter from the NCI was published. The letter stated that NCI had omitted mentioning, in its own published account of its cancer study, that 94% of the patients had been on tranquilizers. But, because this letter did NOT mention how dangerous that situation was, it looked like NCI was simply admitting to a technical and unimportant mistake. A clerical error.

So what did happen to the patients in the NCI hydrazine sulfate study?

They ALL DIED.

The drug, hydrazine sulfate, was judged to be totally ineffective, and thus a competitor for chemotherapy dollars was eliminated. Hydrazine sulfate is a cheap, widely available, unpatentable substance. No profit there.

Was this story splashed across the front pages of major newspapers in America? Did the "great men" of television, those holy anchors, insist on covering it with the emphasis it deserved? Of course not.

The story was originally dug out and published in Penthouse, by reporter Jeff Kamen, who should have won a Pulitzer for it, but won nothing.

And NCI has a rule that none of its patients in clinical trials can have their names revealed.

(THERE ARE OTHER SUBSTANCES AND FOODS WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HYDRAZINE SULFATE AND MAY CAUSE GREAT HARM AND DEATH. ONE SHOULD KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS BEFORE DECIDING TO EXPERIMENT WITH THE DRUG.)

There is more to this incredible story. Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione's wife, Kathy Keeton, who was the founder of Longevity, a magazine that was part of the Guccione empire, was diagnosed with "galloping breast cancer" in 1995. She was given 6 weeks to live.

She refused chemotherapy and became a VERY high-profile case of a person taking hydrazine sulfate instead.

She also chose radiation to reduce one of her many tumors--a growth around her bile duct. Dr. Gold said the dose of radiation should be small, because hydrazine sulfate would enhance the effect of the radiation. But the radiologist gave her the full dose instead, burned her liver and caused later scarring.

Overall, Keeton recovered. In fact, a year after her predicted death date, her cancer was in full remission. The hydrazine sulfate was a remarkable success.

Guccione ran ads in Penthouse, asking for families of the dead victims in the NCI experiment to come forward and join a class-action suit against NCI.

Guccione estimated there had been 600 victims in the NCI clinical test.

In October 1997, Kathy Keeton went into a major and well-respected NY hospital for surgery. From all accounts, this operation had nothing to do with cancer. Amazingly, complications occurred. She died.

Most of America assumed she had succumbed to cancer. Further "proof" that hydrazine sulfate did not work.

Predictably, the FDA has gotten into the act. On April 23, 1998, that criminal agency raided a distributor of hydrazine sulfate, Great Lakes Metabolics, in Rochester, Minnesota. In 2000, the FDA shut down the company that supplies hydrazine sulfate to Great Lakes, and Great Lakes went out of business.

In 1996, when hydrazine sulfate (HS) was still very much in the public spotlight, Dr. Gold states he received 20 phone calls in one day from doctors at Sloan Kettering, the world's number one center for toxic chemotherapy research and treatment. These doctors wanted to obtain HS on the sly for their patients. Gold states that roughly 2/3 of the patients were from the doctors' families. And six of these doctors had refused to give HS to other patients at Sloan Kettering. The phrase, scum of the Earth, comes to mind.

Author Haley offers a dozen patient testimonials re HS. They are anecdotes, to be sure, but they are remarkable.

Example: "Oncologist report in today. No cancer anywhere, after two and a half months on HS and vitamins/minerals and supplements. They have no idea where cancer went."

Example: "Seven weeks on hydrazine sulfate. Brain and lung lesions disappeared."

Example: "I purchased some HS for my sister a few weeks ago. Too early to tell, but she went from near death at the hospital on chemo to a campground some place, with a fishing pole."

I don't make recommendations for medicines. HS studies at Harbor/UCLA and in Russia did not cure everyone, not by a long shot. Of course, there are questions about those protocols too, because ordinary foods like raisins are incompatible with HS--and who knows what the patients were fed. And, on top of that, no well-designed studies have ever been done using HS on patients in early stages of cancer, where the results might be even better.

HS has been defamed by monsters. "First do no harm" has been turned into "destroy." Those responsible for this terrible crime should be arrested, shackled, and shown on national television on the steps at NCI. NCI should be closed and fumigated.

More notes on HS (hydrazine sulfate)...

One session of conventional chemo costs enough to pay for 10 years of treatment with HS.

In 1973, a doctor with a terminal Hodgkins patient approached Dr. Gold for help. Gold recommended a dosage level. In a few weeks, the patient was up and around, not dead. By October of 1973, 1000 patients in the US were on HS.

Dean Burke, head of cell chemistry at NCI, said in 1974 that HS was "the most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years experience in cancer...this material is so cheap because it is made by the trainload for industrial purposes."

In September 1973, Sloan Kettering (SK), the most prestigious cancer center in the world, started an HS study on terminal patients. The lead physician, Dr. Manuel Ochoa, had agreed to give each patient 60 mg a day for 3 days and then 60 mg 3 times a day after that---but Dr. Gold learned Ochoa was changing the protocol drastically---he was giving 1 mg the first day, then 2 mg the next day, and so on, building up to a top of 30 mg----except in some cases he actually gave patients 120-190 mg a day---brutal overdoses.

In 1975 SK announced HS was worthless.

Dr. Gold then did a study for Calbiochem, a drug company. 70% of 84 patients gained weight and had less pain. HS was, in fact, designed to alleviate wasting away in the first place. 17% of the patients showed tumor regression or a stabilization of their condition for one year.

In 1975, Russian researchers published two positive study findings on HS.

In 1976, the American Cancer Society (ACS) put HS on its dreaded blacklist of "unapproved" cancer treatments. ACS neglected to mention it owned 50% of a competing and highly toxic cancer drug, 5FU.

By 1978, the FDA was cracking down on HS. 5000 patients in the US were on the medicine. The FDA falsely stated that HS caused bone marrow toxicity. In fact, conventional chemo---approved by the FDA---destroys bone marrow.

Jeff Kamen, the reporter who got the HS story out in Penthouse? Here is how he became interested in the first place. His mother Erna came back from cancer with HS. She gained 23 pounds and was doing much better. Then her doctor convinced her to stop HS and go on an experimental chemo drug. In five days, she was dead.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

=====================================
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=2780

AUGUST 15, 2005. Here is another backgrounder for my upcoming telephone workshop, DISEASE HOAXES AND HEALING EXERCISES, on August 29th and 30th. Just click on the red link under the green and blue painting on this page, and get all the details. In answer to queries I've received, there will be ample time during both sessions for questions.

************************************************

When people consider healing exercises that tap into the mind-body connection, they tend to think of standardized visualizations or meditations that apply to everyone across the board.

After all, the pattern of conventional medical research is about claiming that one medicine fits all. You have X condition, you take drug Y.

This concept is thoroughly ingrained.

However, early in my research into mind-body healing exercises, I saw that uniform application was not the answer.

People are different. An exercise that may work for one person may be a dud for another person.

An exercise that may work for a person for three weeks may have no effect beyond that point.

I also noticed that some people who were given a specific exercise to do didn't, from the get-go, like the exercise. They were doing it because someone told them to do it.

Which is like telling someone he has to use his imagination in a prescribed way. It creates resistance. And the resistance shipwrecks the situation.

So what to do?

I came up with a simple answer. Present a whole range of exercises, and TELL THE PERSON TO START OUT BY CHOOSING ONE HE IS ATTRACTED TO.

Design the full range of exercises to tap into DIFFERENT ways of accessing healing energy.

Not everyone visualizes or meditates along the same channel. People have their own inclinations and abilities, when it comes to accessing energy.

Some people can visualize things clearly, from the outset. Others rely on feelings. Others use more abstract ideas. There are all sorts of styles.

So I constructed a set of exercises that approach healing energy from various directions.

Sometimes, you will see this: a person begins by doing an exercise that relies on feelings; then, after a while, he finds that he can visualize clearly and he wants to do THAT; or a person begins with visualizations, and later on he moves into feeling.

All sorts of crossovers occur.

Put ten people in front of an abstract painting and ask them what they get from it. One person will describe images he sees inside the shapes of the painting. Another person will tell you what he feels. Another person will relate ideas that occur to him.

Try to force everyone to experience the painting along the same channel and you'll arrive nowhere.

If healing is "the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," it would be foolish to demand that everyone travel the rainbow in the same fashion. One person wants to ride in a car. Another wants to swim. Another feels like running.

At the heart of all healing exercises that tap into the mind-body connection, there is one quality: imagination.

But imagination does not work the same way for everyone.

Ideas, physical sensations, emotions, images, messages, sounds---there are many, many ways in which imagination manifests.

A person will tend to want to do a healing exercise that works the way HIS IMAGINATION WORKS.

When a person says, "I can't imagine anything," he usually means he can't imagine in THE PARTICULAR WAY HE'S BEEN TOLD TO. So he concludes he has no imagination.

But if that person is given access to an exercise that connects with THE WAY HE DOES, IN FACT, IMAGINE, everything changes.

And that's when he accesses healing energies. That's when mind-body healing occurs.

This is very important.

I have known people who imagine based on sound only. They listen to music, and all sorts of images and feelings and sensations arise from the sound. I have known people who come at imagination purely from a visual perspective. They see images, and then, from those images, feelings and sensations proceed. I have worked with people who imagine in terms of ideas. They chew on an idea for a while, and then they obtain very interesting sensations that have no easy labels.

So I have put under one roof a range of healing exercises that will allow people to come at healing energy from their own preferred ways. This works.

Another point: once a person has chosen a healing exercise to do, he may do it for a minute or six hours (over a period of weeks), and then everything dries up. He experiences no more energy. He gets nothing.

At that moment, the person usually thinks, "I'm blocked. I can't go further."

What to do?

It isn't really a block. If that person can find another exercise he wants to do from the list, he can get his engine operating well again. He can come at healing energy from a slightly different angle, and he's in business again. It's just a matter of shifting gears.

Everything I'm bringing up in this backgrounder is usually overlooked or minimized by people who hand out healing exercises to others. But these are key, key factors. They make all the difference.

I hope you'll be with me at the workshop. The mind-body connection is a vital part of healing, and it increases the value of everything else you're doing for your health.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
=================================
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=2805

AUGUST 20, 2005. This is another backgrounder for my upcoming telephone workshop, DISEASE HOAXES AND HEALING EXERCISES. The workshop will take place on August 29 and 30. You do it from your home. Click on the red link under the green and blue painting on this page, and get the details. This one is going to be explosive.

***********************************************

In the spring of 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo and representatives of the US government announced that the cause of AIDS had been found. During this televised press conference, a virus was named. It would later be called HIV.

What very few people realized at the time was, Gallo, the purported hero, hadn't published a single paper that made a serious effort at PROVING that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

Until that moment, researchers at least paid lip service to the idea that you had to publish evidence, and that evidence had to be tested and retested by other scientists, before any conclusions about disease causation could be publicly advanced.

After all, this was what separated science from speculation.

But on that day in 1984, everything changed.

Even when many researchers realized that Gallo's claim of discovery was unsupported by the facts, all but a few of them remained silent. They gave up without a struggle.

The day after Gallo made his preemptive 1984 announcement, all government funding for AIDS research took a sharp right turn. Suddenly, there was no money for investigation into the cause of AIDS. Now, the $$ were slated for people who could establish the mechanism by which HIV attacked and destroyed the immune system.

So any potential rebellion in the ranks was squashed by the re-assignment of dollars.

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987, I discovered the above facts. I also learned that researchers don't simply cast a net into the water when they are searching for the cause of a disease. They are, from the outset, narrowing their field of inquiry.

Gallo had been researching the possible role of so-called retroviruses in cancer. Despite Gallo's optimistic assertions, this effort had yielded nothing of significance. But when the word AIDS appeared on the horizon, he decided to gather his forces and find money to keep researching this type of virus as a potential cause of AIDS. That was his territory, so he went with it.

But it was a strange starting point for him. If he thought that retroviruses caused cancer---which is all about out-of-control proliferation of cells---why would he think that retroviruses would be involved in the destruction of immune-system cells---the hallmark of AIDS?

As I wrote my book, I saw more and more holes in the HIV hypothesis. If HIV was not the cause of AIDS, then what was AIDS? The CDC had just issued a new definition of the disease, in which more and more so-called opportunistic illnesses were listed as markers for AIDS. It was asserted that these marker illnesses were ushered in by the initial immune-system collapse caused by HIV.

But if HIV was a fraudulent cause, then what we were left with? A whole host of diseases that were connected by nothing more than a word: AIDS.

And that word was being used to connect people in Haiti, starving people in Africa, heroin addicts in New York, gay men in San Francisco and New York, and hemophiliacs.

We were also assured that HIV would cause widespread deaths beyond those populations. AIDS, for example, would soon kill large numbers of heterosexual men in the US.

It never happened.

Why not? Was this the first germ that had such esoteric preferences for certain "risk groups?"

During the years since 1987, I met many people who had been diagnosed as HIV positive. They remained healthy, and the common denominator was, they hadn't taken the AIDS drugs.

I also met many people who told me stories about their healthy friends and family who had, on the strength of an HIV positive diagnosis, taken AZT, rapidly declined, and died.

AZT, a failed chemotherapy drug, attacks all cells of the body and destroys the ability of cells to reproduce. In other words, it kills.

The HIV blood test itself was riddled with flaws. A falsely positive result could ensue because of 60 or more factors that had nothing to do with HIV.

I deconstructed and reconstructed the AIDS legend. If you boldly and arbitrarily and falsely announced that a certain group---say, people who inhabited a certain park in a major city---had been exposed to a deadly germ; and if you then undertook a major propaganda campaign to convince these people to get tested for the germ; and if the test yielded false-positive results like crazy; and if you made a major push to have people who tested positive take a deadly drug; you would essentially be consigning these people to destruction.

Name a group. Any group. Put them through this step-by-step process, and many of them end up dead.

That was the assembly line. It still is.

In writing AIDS INC., I examined every so-called high-risk group for AIDS, and I found factors---non-viral factors---in each group that could easily account for the immune-system collapse that was being called AIDS. The factors tended to be different for each group. Some factors were recent. Some were age-old.

When I wrote AIDS INC., there were only a handful of recognized scientists who were speaking out against the fraudulent and death-dealing "research" behind AIDS. Among them, Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy. I had learned much from Peter and Harvey. Since those days, a number of other scientists have stepped up to the plate. They are largely ignored by the press.

Now we see stories in the press about a vaccine that will possibly work to prevent HIV from causing immune-system failure. Such a vaccine will, they say, produce antibodies against HIV in the body. This is taken to be a sign that the person is immune to HIV.

However, the standard HIV blood tests look for these same antibodies. If they are found, the person is said to be on the road to AIDS.

To say there is a confusion here is a vast understatement.

You see, traditionally, the production of antibodies, by the human body, was taken to be an indication that the body had warded off a disease. The germ entered the body, antibodies were produced against it, and the body knocked out the germ.

But with the advent of the AIDS legend, another rule was thrown out the window. Suddenly, antibodies to HIV were taken to be a gravely negative indicator.

Yet, even as the traditional rule was trashed, researchers were saying that a vaccine that induced those same antibodies was protective, was good, was a breakthrough.

In 1988, I spoke with a researcher at the National Institutes of Health. He told me that, when a vaccine was found, every person who took it would be given a letter. The letter would say that he was immune to HIV, and if he ever tested positive for HIV on a blood test, that result should ignored, because he was immune, not on the road to AIDS.

Antibodies naturally produced by the body against HIV=infected with the killer virus. The same antibodies produced by taking a vaccine=protective immunity.

There are researchers who understand this ridiculous and dangerous contradiction. But most of them will not speak out. As a well-known virologist at UCLA once said to me, "HIV is not an issue I'll comment on. It's political. That's all I'll say. There are other people in the research community you could approach, but they won't talk to you, either."

There is more to the AIDS story, and I'll be sharing some of that with you in the workshop.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
=====================

The last one is perhaps the biggest hoax of it all. Have you seen an autopsy report which says, cause of death = AIDS? No. It usually will be TB, pneumonia or multiple organ failure etc etc.

Ever wondered why?

Treasongate...the other view

Actions speak. Words lie. Action follows motive. Motivation is a microscope. must think like a spook in order to understand the totality of these crimes. This report will challenge you to focus like a genius intelligence operative, to look a few moves ahead...and behind.

We've been caught in a web of deceit, so intricate, so devious, so arrogant and dark that there may actually be no escape. If "we the people" don't make those responsible for Treasongate pay for their sins against this country, we deserve everything they've got planned for us down the road to perdition.

ANATOMY OF THE ALLEGED "SMEAR CAMPAIGN"

For the last two years, we've all heard about "the smear campaign" hurled upon Joe Wilson by the Bush administration to punish him for writing the New York Times oped concerning the fake Niger documents. Revenge and political payback is the motivation universally attributed to the Bush syndicate.

It's bullshit. Joe Wilson was not smeared. He went from relative obscurity to national fame, book deals, talk show circuit, hero status accepting, freedom fighting, whistleblowing, saintly coronation. None of it is deserved.

Joe Wilson is in cahoots with the Bush Administration along with David Corn, Bob Novak and Valerie Plame Wilson, a cast of spooks who have only just been outed with the writing of this article. They've carefully scripted this entire affair to shield themselves from prosecution for monolithic treasons against US citizens and our military. Treasongate, Rovegate, Leakgate, whatever you want to call it, is, in reality, an intricate version of hide and seek where the "perpetraitors" have been controlling both sides of the game.

Regardless of the crimes committed by this and past administrations, as long as their spin can divide the people on political lines, justice, true justice, will never be served. If the crime can be given a political spin, the perps can literally get away with any crime, even Treason. They've carefully crafted both sides of this national debate to give both liberal and conservative pundits enough ammunition to keep a heated firefight going in the media. The smokescreen generated by this firefight has diverted our attention from examining:

1. The controlling laws applicable to these facts.

2. The motivations of the Bush administration, Joe Wilson and his wife, and the two news villains responsible for initiating this ruse; Bob Novak, and David Corn.

3. The damage to our natio for writing the New York Times oped concerning the fake Niger documents. Revenge and political payback is the motivation universally attributed to the Bush syndicate.

It's bullshit. Joe Wilson was not smeared. He went from relative obscurity to national fame, book deals, talk show circuit, hero status accepting, freedom fighting, whistleblowing, saintly coronation. None of it is deserved.

Joe Wilson is in cahoots with the Bush Administration along with David Corn, Bob Novak and Valerie Plame Wilson, a cast of spooks who have only just been outed with the writing of this article. They've carefully scripted this entire affair to shield themselves from prosecution for monolithic treasons against US citizens and our military. Treasongate, Rovegate, Leakgate, whatever you want to call it, is, in reality, an intricate version of hide and seek where the "perpetraitors" have been controlling both sides of the game.

Regardless of the crimes committed by this and past administrations, as long as their spin can divide the people on political lines, justice, true justice, will never be served. If the crime can be given a political spin, the perps can literally get away with any crime, even Treason. They've carefully crafted both sides of this national debate to give both liberal and conservative pundits enough ammunition to keep a heated firefight going in the media. The smokescreen generated by this firefight has diverted our attention from examining:

1. The controlling laws applicable to these facts.

2. The motivations of the Bush administration, Joe Wilson and his wife, and the two news villains responsible for initiating this ruse; Bob Novak, and David Corn.

3. The damage to our national security caused by the leaking of Plame's name and front company (Brewster Jennings & Associates) as well as the damage caused by other leaks which show a Bush Administration Modus Operandi (MO) of outing intelligence assets for nefarious purposes.

Their media ruse has, so far, been a complete success. Not one major publication has examined the controlling laws, Espionage statutes found in 18 USC 793 and 794. They've steered the country away from analyzing Plame's outing as espionage by repeating ad nauseam that the motivation for the leak was "political payback." This has enabled them to divide and conquer "we the people" along party lines.

Political payback can be spun, espionage cannot. This is why Joe Wilson, David Corn and all of the liberal media have steered wide of calling this leak exactly what it is, Treason:

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, JOSEPH WILSON, ROBERT NOVAK, DAVID CORN,VALERIE PLAME ET ALS HAVE CONSPIRED TO EXPOSE NETWORKS OF GENUINE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS AND THEIR SOURCES WHO WERE CLOSING IN ON TREASONOUS ACTS PERPETRATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO FURTHER AN INSIDIOUS AGENDA OF EMPIRE EXPANSION THROUGH STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM DESIGNED TO CREATE A THIRST FOR REVENGE AND JUSTICE IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The meticulous outing of Plame and the media circus that ensued was designed as a smokescreen to cloud the truth and the law while they exposed CIA networks operating to stop WMD proliferation. Genuine agents and sources were left out in the cold while targets were warned and allowed to escape.

This is not easy to comprehend. So it's imperative to suspend judgment while you examine this. You must be an impartial juror. Listen objectively to the facts. Analyze the application of those facts to the law. Consider the motives of those involved and then look for MO to back it up.

WHAT LAWS ARE INVOLVED AND WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES?

The one law everybody has heard of regarding this matter is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA). In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law Part 1 Part 2, I explained that, despite the media feeding frenzy involved with analyzing the IIPA, it is totally irrelevant with regards to the Plame leak.

[I strongly urge the reader to carefully study my previous reports explaining these laws before continuing here.]

The IIPA is an intricate piece of work that has a ton of wiggle room while Title 18 of our United States Code, particularly 18 USC 793 and more importantly 794, the Espionage statutes, have virtually no wiggle room for the perpetraitors responsible for leaking Plame's identity (Novak) and her covert status (Corn).

Ever since July 16th 2003, when David Corn first discussed the applicability of the IIPA to these facts, the IIPA has been the sole focus of discussion in the main stream media and the blogosphere.

The concept that all of these spook perpetraitors put their faith in was that if Joe Wilson was talking about the IIPA as the controlling law, then the IIPA would be accepted, by the media and the people, as the controlling law, since Joe Wilson, more than anybody, would want to see the evil Bush administration put away for outing his CIA wife. And when Joe Wilson issued statements to the effect that conviction under the IIPA was probably not going to happen, the rest of us could just let this blow over while a few Bush operatives were given slaps on the wrist.

All the while, Joe Wilson was running protection for the leakers because Wilson and his wife are Bush administration double agent operatives who have something to hide, something big, something towering.

THE LAW

Let me give a short recap for those readers who are not aware of the analysis for 18 USC 794(b)

18 USC 794(b) carries a maximum penalty of death or life in prison.

18 USC 794(b) mandates prosecution of anybody who, in time of war, intentionally communicates information relating to the public defense which might be useful to the enemy.

Question 1: Were we in a time of war when CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson was outed?

Answer: Yes. Despite recent attempts by the Bush administration to shift the policy lingo from GWOT, "global war on terror", to GSAVE,"global struggle against violent extremism", we were "in time of war" back in June/July 2003. And our soldiers are still dying on the same battlefield today. We are still "in time of war". If you have any doubt, just ask the families of our soldiers who died that battlefield. Ask them if we were/are in a time of war. Next question.

Question 2: Was information that related to the public defense communicated?

Answer: The information communicated to Bob Novak outed a CIA operative who coordinated covert agents working on WMD proliferation issues. Nothing could be more related to the "public defense". The answer is yes.

Question 3: Was the information intentionally communicated to the enemy?

Answer: Federal case law has consistently held that there is no difference, for purposes of proving "intent", between communicating the relevant information to a spy and communicating it to the press, since the whole world will be notified of the information upon publication. The answer is yes.

Question 4: "Might" the information be useful to the enemy?

Answer: A CIA operative involved with WMD proliferation and the name of a CIA front company used for such intelligence purposes were exposed. This law does not require that the information communicated... must be useful... to the enemy, 18 USC 794(b) only requires that the information... might be useful... to the enemy. The answer is yes, the information might be useful to the enemy.

Question 5: Who is the enemy?

Answer: The terrorists.

Please note that the statute does not require the perp to communicate directly to the enemy, 794(b) only requires that the perp intends for the information to be communicated to the enemy.

There's no wiggle room. Everybody in the Government who holds a security clearance had to sign a on-disclosure agreement which warns that they can be prosecuted under 18 USC 794 if they violate that agreement. Not that 794(b) requires the information communicated to be classified, it doesn't.

The non-disclosure agreement warns about violating 794(b), so let's not pretend it's an obscure law. Everybody involved was aware of it. This is the United States Code, federal law of the land.

Once you understand 18 USC 794(b), air tight convictions for the Plame leakers become apparent. There's nothing to argue about. There's no wiggle room. The law was drafted to stop espionage, to stop people from exposing our intelligence assets. Maybe you're familiar with them; the CIA, NSA, FBI, departments of our Government we the people pay hundreds of billions for, to protect us from being attacked here at home, and to protect our soldiers abroad.

18 USC 794 has been used to put traitors away for life.

It's the law of the land.

Their ruse involved spinning the Plame leak as revenge and political payback connecting it to the decision to go to war thereby causing "we the people" to become divided. Then they threw a complicated statute into the mix, the IIPA, which allows convincing arguments, both for and against conviction under these facts, so the political smokescreen expanded to an opaque impenetrable thickness.

The national debate that went into the IIPA was intense. Focus that same amount of media energy on 794(b), and there will be a genuine revolution in this country. Imagine the talking head pundits stuck for words, silenced by facts, unable to divide an educated population. Most Americans, spanning the entire political spectrum, are capable of understanding that these controlling federal laws, 18 USC 793 and 794, have been broken, if those laws were sufficiently explained to them.

Following such a national debate, US citizens will demand to know why the Bush administration risked prosecution under such punishing laws. And they will also demand to know why Joe Wilson hasn't been calling for prosecution under these laws.

Once we the people start asking the right questions, the Government and media spin trance fails, they lose control of our minds, and we begin to think for ourselves, to use our minds instead of allowing our minds be used by the enemy.

They created "wiggle room" where there was no wiggle room by guiding your attention, from both liberal and conservative media sources, to the irrelevant Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Violation of 18 USC 794(b) can lead to the death penalty or life in prison, a much greater punishment than under the IIPA. So you would expect that those involved with outing a CIA operative and a CIA front company might think twice about breaking this law. And this leads to the following questions about motivation which really get to the heart of this intricate ruse:

1. WOULD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION VIOLATE 18 USC 794 KNOWING SUCH A VIOLATION COULD LEAD TO DEATH OR LIFE IN PRISON JUST TO "SMEAR" JOE WILSON?

No. They aren't' that stupid. These are intelligent people who have procured the Executive Branch of the US Government. 18 USC 794 has put people like Aldrich Ames away for life. This is a very serious law. Nobody in the Bush administration was going to break it just to bitch slap Joe Wilson. That's the fecal toast Joe Wilson and David Corn originally served over two years ago, a meal that has been uniformly consumed by America, so please don't eat it anymore. It's a lie, and a rather bad one at that.

Focus on the penalty; death or life in prison. The motivation of a bitch slap does not fit the crime. The Bush administration must have had a greater motivation to risk prosecution under 794(b).

Furthermore, they had to know they were turning Joe Wilson into a star the liberal media would canonize. They did no harm to Joe Wilson, and they did no harm to his wife. This so called "outing" scandal is actually cover for their conspiratorial treason, the betrayal of her network and the work it was doing.

Valerie Plame Wilson = Double Agent

Plame and Wilson are double agents in the "Intelligence war" going on between the treasonous Bush administration and divisions of US Intelligence and the military.

The Plame/Wilson double agent status becomes obvious when you examine Joe Wilson's actions under the electron microscope of motivation:

2. WHAT IS JOE WILSON'S MOTIVATION FOR NOT RAISING THE ISSUE OF 18 USC 794?

"Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

That is a direct quote given by Joseph Wilson to David Corn for the infamous (and treasonous) report published on July 16, 2003,in The Nation; wherein Corn leaked Plame's "undercover" status as a CIA officer.

"This is the stuff of...Aldrich Ames."

It's really quite an amazing quote which history may record as being the smoking dung gun that toppled this administration and put Joe Wilson and the other co-conspirators behind bars.

USA, you've been hoodwinked big time.

Aldrich Ames is serving life in prison for his violation of 18 USC 794. He leaked the identity of several NOC CIA Officers to the Soviets. So, Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, if you are so outraged at the Bush administration, why aren't you screaming for a prosecution of the people responsible for outing your wife under the same statute? You've compared the crimes of Aldrich Ames to those involved with the outing of your wife, so why aren't you pounding your fist for the special prosecutor to invoke the same law which put Ames away for life? You've never even mentioned it.

MOTIVATION

Wilson certainly can't claim ignorance of the law. He's issued detailed analysis of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, on the record, during a public Q&A at one of his glorious book signings, recorded by William Kaminsky, wherein Wilson discussed the intricacies of the IIPA and explained in great detail that convictions under that act were unlikely. He exhibited a great knowledge of that law while forwarding the diversionary spin started by his pal, David Corn. From Kaminsky's blog

"Meeting Joe Wilson (Part 1 of 2)

On Thursday night, the venerable and most definitely left-leaning Harvard Book Store held a lecture/question and answer session/book signing event with Ambassador Joseph Wilson...

First of all, Ambassador Wilson has every confidence in the dedication and prosecutorial skills of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, Wilson concedes a point many of the Administration's defenders make: it will be extremely hard to convict anyone of violating the most serious (and most often discussed) of the applicable laws, namely the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (United States Code, Title 50, Sections 421-426). Rather, Wilson thought that a prosecutor wanting a winnable case would have to settle for the weaker charge of disclosure of classified information (United States Code, Title 18, Section 798)...While technically disclosure of classified information can be a felony carrying the same maximum penalty of a fine and 10 years imprisonment as violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it apparently can also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor charge, and this is what Wilson thought likely..."

Hey Joe, you're quick on your feet whipping out that 18 USC 798 softball law along with the IIPA, so why don't you flip a few sections back to 793 and 794?

Wilson might answer, "Well Spook, thing is, this was a smear, I tell ya. I was shmeered, Spook. They shmeered me, man. They wanted to hurt me and my CIA wife real bad because I'm an award winning courageous patriot who stood up to their forgeries and told the world from the beacon of the New York Times. It's not espionage. It's a smear campaign. I don't think we really need to distract the population with the Espionage act Spook, do we?"

Well, Joe, I think we do need to distract the population. I mean, after all, you told David Corn that one of our "star" intelligence assets was outed thereby crippling many operations, scattering agents to the four winds and possibly the grim reaper's door, crushing national security. "This is the stuff of Aldrich Ames". Sorry Joe, but motive, while an excellent tool of analysis, is irrelevant to the determination of whether the Espionage laws were broken. The law doesn't give a rats ass what the Bush administration's motive was for breaking the law.

The law does not provide a motive defense. They can tell the judge and jury at trial, "Yeah, so we outed her network, but we did it to shmeer Joe Wilson, not to cause damage to national security." But the cold hard fact remains,18 USC 794 doesn't care. There's no "motive" requirement. Sorry Joe, this is treason. You said it yourself, "This is the stuff of Aldrich Ames". What an amazing quote.

The cold, made of steel, unbendable law, 18 USC 794, is the reason Wilson has been guiding American attention spans to the IIPA. As long as we were focused on the IIPA, convictions would be very hard to come by.

Wilson was running protection.

Back to Kaminsky's report on Wilson's book signing:

"Wilson offered two reasons for his pessimism:

1. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act explicitly says that it is a valid defense versus prosecution to claim an operative's identity has previously been revealed...

It is clear that the Administration's defenders intend to use this defense...

But anyways, when all is said and done, this isn't the main reason why Ambassador Wilson is pessimistic about the prospects of a successful prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, his main reason is:

2. Right at its outset, the Act qualifies that disclosing a covert operative's identity is illegal only if it is done intentionally and in the knowledge that the government is still actively maintaining a cover for operative...

Wilson said he believed that anyone accused under the Act thus could successfully mount the defense that he or she knew only that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA and not that the CIA actively maintained a cover (or covers) for her as a operative in the Clandestine Service who was active in the last 5 years."

Look at Wilson go. He's got that spin down pat. On the one hand, he's literally crying in public over the outing of his CIA wife, "If I could give you back your anonymity....", while on the other hand, he creates the Bush admin defense all in one gasp of legal puke. He exhibits a knowledge of various US Code as well as a perfect analysis of the IIPA, while steering the entire country away from the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793.

Have a look at Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth", and look for any mention of 18 USC 793 or 794. It's not there.

His books starts with a section called, "Anatomy Of A Smear":

"...a vindictive government has used the press in order to try to destroy an opponent." (page 2)

The Plame leak only made the Bush administration appear guilty as sin regarding the Niger documents and the fraudulent reasons for going to war, and I submit to you that this is exactly what the Bush administration and its operatives intended. The decision to go to war was a political issue, and the country is divided along party lines, so it's safe for them to risk the appearance of guilt by "outing" Wilson's wife and looking guilty as long as Wilson, Corn and everybody else repeats the mantra that it was done for revenge, political payback, etc. But the true motivation was to stop the agents she was working with from gathering evidence of mass murder; past present and future.

To smear Wilson is ridiculous considering the possible penalty for Treason, and to smear him knowing it makes you look guilty of fixing the intelligence is even more insane unless that's exactly what you were trying to do...look insane.

To out Plame and smear Wilson as a smokescreen for a greater sin, a greater Treason, a Treason of past and future murder of innocent citizens...now that is a motivation that warranted risking their violation of 18 USC 794.

Their gambit was centered on Wilson controlling the media circus, steering everybody towards the IIPA, and away from 18 USC 794.

If Wilson, cast in the starring role as the husband filled with anger for the damage and danger put on his wife, was talking about the IIPA, well then, who could argue with him? Who had more motivation for wanting the leakers put away than Joe Wilson?

Nobody,...if you believe this crap.

And Joe Wilson not only took the baton from David Corn regarding the IIPA, but he further protected the Bush leakers even from prosecution under that irrelevant law by stating his opinion that convictions were unlikely due to the "wiggle room" written into the IIPA.

Mr. Wilson, you brought up the name Aldrich Ames, so why don't you bring up the law he was convicted under? In the two plus years this script (and that is exactly what he's reading from) has been played out, you haven't mentioned the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793. You haven't called for the people responsible for outing your wife and her entire CIA network to be thrown in jail with Aldrich Ames for life. No, instead you've conspired to fool the country into burying its head in your smokescreen.

Chris Matthews told Joe Wilson that Karl Rove said, "Wilson's wife is fair game."

From Wilson's book, page 1:

" ' Wilson's wife is fair game.' Those are fighting words for any man..."

And you fight back with the lame Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Wilson? Your actions don't back up your words. Your motivation must be lacking since you could have responded in kind with your own fighting words. Had you responded as follows, perhaps we could believe you, Joe Wilson. Here's what Citizen Spook would have said:

"The people who outed my wife are traitors, no different than Aldrich Ames who was convicted under 18 USC 794. They deserve to be put away for life in the same cell block for Treason."

But you didn't say that Mr. Wilson. And if I'm wrong about you and your wife, let's see you start saying it. Get in your Jaguar and ride, bang the drums for Treason, Treason that exposed your wife endangering her life and the lives of her network. Your family was cast in the spotlight by the Bush administration who exposed your loved ones to dangerous covert agents the world over. Why aren't you demanding justice and prosecutions under 18 USC 794(b) for such a dastardly deed?

Wilson's book references the IIPA on pages; xxxviii-xxxix, xl, 4, 346, 349, 350-351, 358-360, 384-385, 388, 395-396, and 445. Do you know how many times 18 USC 793 and 794 are mentioned? None, nada, zero. Why do you think that is? Because Wilson never heard of these laws? No. This CIA couple know the law inside out. And they know the carnage that outing her caused to the operations and operatives she was overseeing, people that trusted her whose lives were in her hands.

From page 446 of Wilson's book:

"We worry about our personal security, but there is little we can do."

But nobody dared publish a photo of Plame...until she posed with her husband for the January '94 issue of Vanity Fair. Wasn't it bad enough that her name got out, that her front company was exposed? Why would she follow through by mugging for the camera in Vanity Fair? Isn't that just putting her in more jeopardy? Isn't that making it even easier for enemy agents both here and in foreign lands to reconcile her likeness?

You'd think, out of respect for her fellow agents she'd lay low and stay out of the spotlight, but "Valerie was always a star in her profession". (page 446)

Now more than ever.

It's open season on the NOCS she supervised, the NOCS out there in the field gathering evidence on who?

Who do you think?

From page 447 of Wilson's book:

"We had assumed that on the day the Novak article appeared, every intelligence office in Washington, and probably all those around the world, were running Valerie's name through their databases. Foreign intelligence services would not attack us, but they might as well threaten any contacts Valerie might have made in their countries, and they would certainly be eager to unearth operations she might have been involved in.

International terrorist organizations were a different story, however. There was a history of international terrorists attacking exposed officers."

So they go on the cover of Vanity Fair like this was a bad episode of Jane Bond.

And Wilson goes on the Daily Show for jokes with Jon Stewart. From page 358:

"Jon was so humorous that I found myself laughing heartily right along with the audience..."

From page 384:

"An officer had been exposed, an act that threatened many intelligence professionals." It's hilarious, isn't it, Mr. Wilson?

In "The CIA at War", by Ronald Kessler, the Vanity Fair photo was discussed on pages 344-345:

"Their claims to have been victimized by the Bush white house were destroyed when they agreed to be photographed sitting in their Jaguar for the January issue of Vanity Fair. Wilson claimed that the fact that his forty-year old wife wore sunglasses and a scarf disguised her. But anyone she dealt with overseas could clearly recognize her..."

" 'They risked undermining any possible prosecution by their public statements and appearances,' said John L. Martin who, as Chief of the Justice Department's counterespionage section, was in charge of supervising leak investigations. 'The scarf and the sunglasses worn in the Vanity Fair picture was a sham.' "

"...Not only had Wilson and Plame subverted their own posturing as victims of the Bush White House, they had undermined the integrity of the CIA's clandestine program to collect intelligence using covert officers. If a CIA officer took her duty to remain in a clandestine role so lightly it could make agents leery of risking their lives to provide intelligence to other CIA officers."

Wilson and Plame behaved as if they were trying to make the Bush administration's case for a defense to the IIPA. By showing up in public as they have done, they lend credence to the Bush talking points which argue that Plame's status at the CIA was not covert and that blowing her cover was no big deal. Their gambit was based on the arrogant self belief they could trick the nation into believing its laws against espionage don't exist.

Under 18 USC 794, it doesn't matter if she was covert, it only matters whether her name and position were "related to the public defense". Don't forget that State Department memo though. The paragraph her name appeared in was marked "(S)" for secret, and according to a Bush Executive order, that meant her name and job were classified info. The memo is prima facie proof of her status.

The Instpundit(December 3rd, 2003) has some interesting insights about the actions of Plame/Wilson:

"OKAY, I'M OFFICIALLY PRONOUNCING THE PLAME SCANDAL BOGUS:

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson has been quite protective of his wife, Valerie Plame, in the weeks since her cover as a CIA operative was blown.

'My wife has made it very clear that -- she has authorized me to say this -- she would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press and she will not allow herself to be photographed,' he declared in October on 'Meet the Press'.

But that was before Vanity Fair came calling.

The January issue features a two-page photo of Wilson and the woman the magazine calls 'the most famous female spy in America,' a 'slim 40-year-old with white-blond hair and a big, bright smile.' They are sitting in their Jaguar...

Sorry -- if you're really an undercover spy, and really worried about national security, you don't do this sort of thing...

Serious people don't do self-promoting spreads in Vanity Fair where important questions of national security are involved...Not knowing the underlying facts, I have to make my judgment by the behavior of the parties. And judging from that, the scandal is bogus, and Wilson is a self-promoter who can't be trusted. That's my judgment on this matter. Yours, of course, may vary. But if you see Wilson as anything other than a cheesy opportunist, well, then yours really varies...."

Mine really does vary, I see him as a facilitator of Treason, the ringleader on an intricate plot to both expose Plame's WMD network and to also protect her and the Bush administration from serious legal scrutiny of their collective Treason.

The Vanity Fair publicity, the book deal, the Daily Show appearance, the awards he's accepted...all of it was designed by these spooks to provide cover under the IIPA to distract those honest, conservative leaning citizens and media personnel, who might have been sympathetic to Plame being exposed.

The actions of Wilson, despite his tough words, have been calculated to divide the left and the right. You have to give these spooks credit for bravado and hutzpa.

More from Instapundit:

"Tom Maguire says I told you so. He also notes that saying that Wilson is bogus isn't quite the same as saying that the scandal is bogus. I guess that's right, in theory. But the claim that Plame was endangered is what drove this scandal, and it came from Wilson, who seems to be, well, bogus... I suppose it's still theoretically possible that somebody in the White House deliberately and illegally outed Plame as a way of getting revenge on Wilson for his dumb -- and deeply unprofessional -- oped about his "mission" to Niger. But if you assume that nothing that Wilson says can be relied on because he's a self-promoter who'll stretch a fact to get attention, which seems extremely plausible, then you're not left with much evidence. And the Wilson/Plame couple certainly isn't acting like Plame's life is in danger. They're acting like opportunists milking their 15 minutes and hoping for a lucrative book contract. So pardon me if I conclude that their actions speak louder than Wilson's words..."

Wilson and Plame engaged in a course of action that was designed to discredit the investigation.

Are you starting to get the picture?

THE TREASON OF CORN

Corn was the first person to put the IIPA in the public eye. David Corn was now on my radar. I examined Wilson's book and found out, for the first time, that David Corn has been a big player in Treasongate. From The Politics of Truth, page 4:

"David Corn, from The Nation magazine, had alerted me and later written the first article pointing out that the disclosure by way of the Novak article might have violated the 1982 IIPA. But whether illegal or not, it was still an unwelcome intrusion into my wife's private life..."

So David Corn was the first pawn used to disseminate the spin that the IIPA was the controlling law. And look at Wilson sew the subtle innuendo "whether it was illegal or not." On page 349, Wilson explains Corn's purpose:

"Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved."

That's some damning evidence right there. Because we know that statement is a bold faced lie carefully designed to continue the illusion that the IIPA was the controlling law.

ALL OF THE LEGALITIES INVOLVED? "ALL"???

There's more to Corn and The Nation than meets the eye. "Nobody owns The Nation" says the commercial being aired on Air America Radio. Bullshit.

The Nation also held a special function to present Joe Wilson with the first Ron Ridenhour award for Truth-Telling. It's just so damn transparent.

Clifford May's article, "Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?" published in National Review online, July 15th 2005, makes a strong case that, while Novak was the first person to expose "Wilson's wife", Corn is actually the journalist responsible for first publishing Plame's undercover/covert status:

"This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.

Read - or reread - his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is 'an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction'...

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak's column appeared. It carried this lead: 'Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security - and break the law - in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?'

Since Novak did not report that Plame was 'working covertly' how did Corn know that's what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a 'statement of fact.' But in the article, he asserts that Novak 'outed' Plame 'as an undercover CIA officer.' Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, 'outing' Plame's 'undercover' status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, 'I will not answer questions about my wife.' Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn's questions about his wife - after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn's piece and it's difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides - and he provides much more information than Novak revealed...

On what basis could Corn 'assume' that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a 'top-secret' operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been 'outed' in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column...

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson - to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Corn's article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame's undercover work, her 'dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.' But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?"

Don't misinterpret the meaning of Corn's involvement. Novak is not off the hook, he's responsible under 18 USC 794(b) for intentionally communicating information, related to the public defense, to the enemy, in a time of war, and he's also guilty of violating 18 USC 794(c) for "conspiracy" to violate 18 USC 794(b), so he's in big trouble.

Corn's July 16th report, wherein he outed Plame's status as an "undercover CIA officer", puts him on the hook for violation of 18 USC 794(b) and (c) as well, since Plame's "status", that of "undercover CIA officer", was first published by Corn, not Novak.

Corn was the media ringleader on the left. Novak held that title on the right. And together they pulled the wool over the eyes of the Nation.

Moreover, it's no defense under 18 USC 793 and 794 that the perp have knowledge that the information communicated was officially classified as being "Secret" as long as the information was "related to the public defense" and was intentionally communicated to the enemy, in a time of war.

Also, federal case law, particularly US. V. Morison;, holds that First Amendment "freedom of the press" arguments are not a defense for violators of the Espionage statutes, 793 and 794. Corn and Novak are both guilty of Treason, if not directly under 794(b), indirectly, under 794(c) for conspiracy.

Clifford May raised another interesting question:

"Corn concludes that Plame's career 'has been destroyed by the Bush administration.' And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.'

Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee. But he is willing to say on the record that 'naming her this way' was an act of treachery? That's not talking about his wife? That's not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.

If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don't claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out."

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. Who will turn (has turned?) State's evidence first, second, third?

Valerie Plame will be the toughest conviction in this treason conspiracy. I suppose a creative prosecutor, if he establishes that Plame's likeness was information related to the public defense, could successfully prosecute her for transmitting that information to the enemy by agreeing to be photographed for the cover of Vanity Fair. If Fitzgerald were to bring witnesses from the CIA to testify that they never would have given her permission to be photographed for the cover of a major magazine, and those witnesses could bring evidence that her likeness "might be used", or was used, by the enemy, she could be prosecuted under 18 USC 793 and 794(b) and (c).

THE MODUS OPERANDI OF PRIOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION LEAKS

Daithí Mac Lochlainn of Melbourne Indymedia; first alerted me to the Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan leak situation. Daithi is organizing a petition to gather support insisting that the Government investigate this incredible treason.

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com; has written a very interesting report on that leak: Who 'Outed' Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan?:

"Khan, dubbed a 'computer geek' on account of his technical prowess, functioned as a one-man information hub for Al Qaeda, coordinating and forwarding messages between the top leadership and Bin Laden's foot-soldiers worldwide. Once captured, Khan 'flipped' and agreed to cooperate. CIA interrogators had him sending emails to his former

confederates all day Sunday and Monday of last week, and getting back encrypted replies. On Monday morning, however, the Times came out with its story, naming Khan and reporting his disclosures as the real basis of the code orange security alerts issued by Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The Times cited both Pakistani and U.S. government officials.

It is hard to know what to make of this. Either these unidentified officials had certain knowledge that Bin Laden's New York Times subscription had run out, or else someone deliberately sabotaged a top secret anti-terrorist operation while it was in progress.

As is so often the case with this administration, one is faced with the question: is it incompetence, or is it treason?"

It's treason. Stop saying it's incompetence. Don't be naive. They hijacked the Executive Branch. They're cold, calculated, evil geniuses.

Antiwar.com:

" '[CNN's Wolf] Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on background. He reported that she had admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for the Pakistani government.'

What a profoundly weird remark...

What I'd like to know, however, is who is working as a double agent inside our own government? Because someone has sure sabotaged the hunt for Bin Laden and his cohorts just as effectively as if they'd been working for the Islamists."

Rice admits they leaked Khan's name. Leaking is their MO. By admitting the leak, she admitted treason under 18 USC 794 (and 793).

Too bad for Condi et als that the information they leaked was related to the public defense and might be useful to the enemy. In this case, "might have" isn't even an issue -- it was useful to the enemy. And it's important to highlight the fact that 18 USC 794 doesn't require the information to be in the form of a covert operative, or anything specific, as is required by the IIPA. It only requires "information" be communicated.

WHAT WAS PLAME'S NETWORK WORKING ON THAT CAUSED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO RISK DEATH OR LIFE IN PRISON BY OUTING PLAME?

There are some very strong indications.

Roger Payne's Blog; of August 5th, 2005, discusses the Khan leak and mentions a very interesting quote by Joe Klein writing for Time Magazine:

"Joe Klein reported; in Time Magazine, June 26, 2004 that Plame 'may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components.'

A WMD sting? Really? Now, that's interesting."

This ties in with Mark Shapiro's report for Mother Jones; concerning Asher Karni's arrest and coming prosecution for trafficking in WMD components. (Read that article before continuing here.)

From Shapiro's report:

"But in March, anonymous law enforcement officials complained to the Los Angeles Times that the State Department--afraid of offending Pakistan, its partner in the war on terror--had blocked agents from the Commerce and Homeland Security departments from pursuing those leads and going to Pakistan to interview Khan and others."

Valerie Plame, Able Danger, John O'Neil, Sibel Edmonds. The Bush Administration has consistently stopped our intelligence departments

from doing their job.

MOTIVE? Treason.

Shapiro reports that anonymous law enforcement officials complained to

the LA Times that the State Department blocked them from investigating

leads. But they weren't able to stop the intelligence this time.

More from Shapiro's report:

"Ultimately, Karni was tripped up not by the system, but by an odd bit of serendipity: a mysterious individual who, starting in the summer of 2003, guided investigators along Karni's labyrinthine trail. The government's complaint against Karni is peppered with references to the 'anonymous source in South Africa' who clued them in to the 'possible diversion of U.S. origin equipment'."

Wayne Madsen (an independent investigative journalist who has covered DC politics,national security, and intelligence issues since 1994, has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, and more) offered the following commentary for Morphizm.com; in an extensive report about the Asher Karni situation:

"It is no coincidence that FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds uncovered nuclear material and narcotics trafficking involving Turkish intermediaries with ties to Israel at the same time Brewster Jennings and the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division was hot on the trail of nuclear proliferations tied to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and the A. Q. Khan network of Pakistan.

An arrest in early 2004 points to the links between Israeli agents and Islamist groups bent on producing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. According to intelligence sources, this was a network that was a major focus of Edmonds' and Valerie Plame Wilson's work...

Karni's e-mail traffic to and from Khan was being intercepted by a covert agent in South Africa and being forwarded to U.S. authorities. It is not known whether the covert agent was a Brewster Jennings' asset but it would not be surprising considering Karni was an important link in the A. Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network...

According to FBI insiders, wiretaps of phone calls in the Giza-Bilmen-Karni smuggling ring yielded the name Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Plans and Policy and one of Donald Rumsfeld's chief advisers, and Turkish MIT intelligence members of the Turkish American Council."

It will be interesting to see who decides to cooperate with Patrick

Fitzgerald as heads begin to roll and testimony is traded for immunity.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

Over qualified

they didnt believe me when I said that every idiot who interviewed me came up with the title. Today poobal, a pal of mine from college posted my CV and got a call and was simply told that i was .....OQ...what the fuck.....what does OQ mean.... a man spends his professional life to acquire various skill sets and at the end of it when he needs a change, he gets sidelined by the simple "over qualified" excuse.

Am I supposed to pretend that I was a fucking peon in all the orgs that I worked. Fuck you, corporates. From now on I will strive to expose you sanctimonious assholes. As insidiously, as you have shunted me out. Ye, corporates in India havent realized/woken up to the power of ONE.

And I am gonna do that. To every company who rejected me because I was Over Qualified...Lordie, a splitting my guts out laughing....

No wonder all you bastards shut down within 10 years of opening...and thats the max limit. the average as per staistics are 3 years.

You should have hired me, dumbos.