If Plame was not an operative on the NOC list, why is the DOJ investigating?
154308
This is just another example of how the Democrats are going on a witch hunt.  They couldnt win in an election so now they are trying to find other ways to take down this president.
768361
Because the prosecutors don't normally try someone unless they believe they have the evidence to prove it.  So if someone is up for trial, there are good chances they are guilty.
643605
I think this was his and Karl Rove's brainchild.  These  were two nerds that had visions of being in a position of power where for once they controlled things.  Unfortunately, instead of being friends with the football team and dating cheerleaders, they are getting back at anyone who opposes their point-of-view politically.  This was not only a dangerous, traitorous act but a juvenile prank and they should both be indicted for it.  They will probably not be found guilty but they should have to go thru the humiliation of having to stand trial. Plame, her family and all those operatives that have been jeopardized deserve nothing less from our judicial system.  I dont think that we will ever know all of the lives that this has affected.
927831
The local airport authority issues those badges, supposed to do a back ground check.\nT.C. Drywall would have submitted them for the employment and clearance.\nThe security check would have consisisted of a name and fingerprint check (criminal check) which would only pop positive if the six had been arrested before.\nWhat should have tipped off the airport authority, and probably did tip off the ICE folks, was the inconsistancy with the Social Security numbers.
697567
No and it's not the law, the LAW says the FISA courts have jurisdiction over these matter and warrants must be sought and approved, no warrant means no spying, the FISA court is also notoriously easy to get a warrant from they have only turned down 3 out of over 20,000 requests, so the real question remains why can't this administration abide by the law and use the courts?
845890
No.  Because even though he resigned, he can still be investigated by congress.
1146928
From the FBI website:\n\nThe Terrorist Screening Center cannot confirm or deny whether an individual is on the consolidated terrorist watchlist, because this information is derived from classified and sensitive law enforcement and intelligence. The nondisclosure of the contents of the watch list protects the operational counterterrorism and intelligence collection objectives of the government, as well as the personal safety of those involved in counterterrorism investigations. The watchlist remains an effective tool in the government’s counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed.
827537
What won't they uncover more like.\n\n1) That there was never any real evidence that there were WMDs\n2) That the whole invasion and war was planned out by  the New American Century think tank back at the start of the Clinton years.\n3) That Karl Rove revealed Valerie Plame's name to the press with the knowing consent of the president\n4) That Haliburton ad the subsidiaries of Carlysle group have been the recipient of a huge amount of government funds that cannot be accounted for.\n5) That Rumsfeld ignored vital advice from the brass on what was needed to win the war.\n6) That plans were made to  invade Iran as well.\n\n...the list goes on and on.
314787
Maybe your not seeing the light babe! Bush is a criminal, and so is most of his staff. His Secretary of Homeland Security was caught with his molesting hands on a 14 year old girl. These are the people that are in charge of the Patriot Act. Tom Delay is another, Jack Abramoff is another, Cheney shooting his lawyer is another. It's on, and on.
961638
The Democrat operative Richard Armitage admitted to being the leaker. Nothing is going to happen to him because no crime was committed.\n\nThe Liberal press did very little coverage of it. That is why you didn`t know.\nThat is also why you see all the posts here of uniformed answers about Scooter Libby who was indited for an unrelated issue and had nothing to do with the outing.
31438
Actually, the NSA is using a computer system that monitors for keywords, and phrases. As all information passes through the line, the program kicks out those conversations/e-mails that reference specific titles/code words/individuals. \n\nOnce those conversations/e-mails have been ear-marked, guidelines will entail whether a warrant is necessary. Once it's determined that indeed the conversation SHOULD be looked at by investigators? A warrant is issued by a Federal court.\n\nIt's not some guy/gal in a cube... with a set of headphones... You SPECIFICALLY have to fit a set of criteria, and then have a conversation ear-marked for investigation, THEN a warrant is issued. \n\nI hope this helps answer your question.
877539
Probably because a full scale investigation of the Foley scandal will uncover a lot of dirty little democrat secrets. Lady Pelosi was not very happy with the appointment of Louis Freeh to lead the Foley investigation. Freeh was the FBI director under the Clinton administration and has a history of being non-partisan.
256609
Sorry, but Althea's answer is nonsense.  The government had not been running around checking all our library records.   For pity's sake, even if they WANTED to, they haven't a fraction of the resources it would take to do somtehing on such a scale!\n\n The Patriot Act does not even make any special mention of libraries (despite all the ridiculous hype).   It simply allows that, IF there's good reason to suspect you're up to something, the government can go after records from various sources (not listed, but video stores & libraries would be included, with all sorts of other places).   These sorts of provisions have been in place and used for decades to go after domestic criminals (e.g., "the mob").  The Patriot Act just allows investigators to do the same when they are trying to track down terrorists.    \n\nAnd please remember, they can't just do it willy nilly; they have to be able to show a judge that there is "probable cause".\n\nSo. . . I believe ANSWERS already IS covered, as it should be.  It just isn't mentioned by name.  And of course, if you're not plotting some sort of attack, I don't see any reason for you to be concerned.\n\n(BTW, has anyone brought forward a SINGLE instance of someone's rights being trampled under this act?)
430752
could be obstruction of justice\ncoulde be filing a false report\ncould be larceny
769563
Sorry, but for OPSEC reasons, you will not know this ahead of time.  And for those who DO answer this, will be reported!
352459
It might be withholding some information on the grounds of national security of for legal reasons but in the main the events of that day are so well documented that it would be difficult to withold any of the salient facts.\n\nThere are conspiracy theories that 9/11 was orchestrated by the FBI and other US agencies but as with all conspiracy theories, they don't stand up to even the most basic of examinations and are based on ignorance not fact.
479879
There is no HUMINT operational side of the NSA.  To the extent that it has one, it is the DIA, as both are DoD components.