Talk:Intelligence Identities Protection Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.


OK, so footnotes & documentation are necessary here too. No problem. nobs 18:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Documenting irrelevant and insignificant details does not make them any less irrelevant and insignificant. I'm afraid the problem with your edit is that it is a blatant smear, and POV. You're obviously trying to grind an ideological ax here, and likely a personal one, too. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Three-revert rule

Gamaliel and Nobs01, you have both violated the three-revert rule. Please stop bickering over this article. - dcljr (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct; please check the edit history again. Either way, I am persisting in removing that particular information because it does not seem relevant to this article and seems to be part of what appears to be a campaign against Chip Berlet by nobs and other parties. See Talk:Chip Berlet and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert for more information on this matter. Gamaliel 07:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, here's some of the background and sourcing: Talk:Chip Berlet#Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There's enough there to get started on several texts. For the moment, I've been detracted the with ArbCom request, but I don't suspect Mr. Robert Welch's corpse or any of the the other sources are going anywhere in the meantime. nobs 18:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel, here are your three edits: [1], [2], [3]. - dcljr (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion." Gamaliel 06:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes. You are right. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. However (also from that page): "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable" and "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an 'electric fence'; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars." So, okay, you didn't violate the rule, but certainly the rule was still relevant—especially since you reverted the same edits of Nobs01 seven times in a week. Of course, similar comments apply to Nobs01, as well... - dcljr (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ideally, I would prefer no reverts in a week, but ensuring the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia articles is more important. Gamaliel 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IIPA details

Who originally sponsored the IIPA bill? Funkyj 07:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

According to this Slate article by Christopher Hitchens, the New York Times described Senator John Chafee as a "chief sponsor" of the bill in 1982. Also, this article by Bob Dole at his official website says he was a sponsor. That's all I came up with in a quick Google search just now. - dcljr (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unconstitutional and immoral

Isn't this law unconstitutional? The 1st amendment clearly acknowledges the freedom of speech and that of the press. Also, being a spy is a very dishonest profession, since espionage is utterly ungentleman-like, so there can be no morality based argument to support protecting spy identities. 195.70.32.136 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is only for Wikipedia contributors discussing how to improve the article. It is not a debate forum. Please take the issue elsewhere. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ed is correct, this isn't the place to debate such things. However, it has been argued that this law violates the first amendment, and such information does belong on the article. That said, I don't particularly feel like researching it myself right now, but if you find reliable sources engaging in that discussion, please feel free to bring that material to the article.--csloat 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The first ammendment does not provide absolute free speech protection... for example it doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless there actually is a fire of course)... it can be argued that speech that speech that directly leads to physical harm is not protected, which I'm sure would be a counter-argument to this law violating the first ammendment, as it can certaintly be argued that revealing covert CIA agents puts them at direct risk of being killed by people and groups that oppose CIA activities (which in fact was the primary justifaction for passing this law in the first place). If you want to add the debate and have soueces, make sure to provide both sides of this to keep the article NPOV.

[edit] overseas work

Am I mistaken about this? I haven't been following recent events but my recollection of the Corn and Isikoff book is that they established that Plame had in fact worked overseas on assignment for the CIA. I changed the paragraph that suggested she hadn't, but the phrasing of the issue needs work (and the whole paragraph could use some sources).csloat 00:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The real issue isn't whether she ever had at any point worked overseas for the CIA, but whether she was a covert agent at the time she was revealed to work for the CIA in the article. If she wasn't covert at the time, the law wouldn't have been broken. (Plame claims that once somene is labeled covert, they are always covert, but some legal experts disagree with that assertion.) That's still being debated, but so far nobody has actually been charged with violating this law in the Plame case. Another counter-argument is that is was not revealed that she was a covert agent, merely that she was an employee of the CIA, which was public knowledge (anybody could have stood outside the gates of CIA Headquarters and watch her drive in) and arguably wouldn't have been a violation of this law.

The CIA has stated that Plame was covert at the time of the leak [4] so this matter is settled. User:CSears

Umm... the CIA did not say Plame was Covert. The footnote points to a MSNBC article that just says "a brief was filed". That's a very different thing. Also, the WaPo article clearly states that Plame's fake company became a matter of public record when she donated $1000 to the Gore campaign. This needs a-changing. - John M.

I think this article needs to be updated. I don't think there is an ongoing investigation into the "Plame affair". Scooter Libby's prosecution was the only legal outcome of the special prosecutors investigation. And apparently none of the statements by Novak, Armatage, or others, met all the criterion in this law.