C.I.A. Didn’t Violate (Valerie Plame Wilson's Free Speech) Rights, Court Says

[sabra]

Source: NY Times

The Central Intelligence Agency did not violate the free speech rights of a former operative, Valerie Wilson, when it prohibited publication of details of her work before 2002 for the agency, a federal appeals court ruled. Ms. Wilson, left, whose classified status was exposed by Bush administration officials, redacted portions of her 2007 book, “Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House” because of the ban, but argued that the information was already in the public domain and publication should have been permitted. The opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, stated that “When Ms. Wilson elected to serve with the C.I.A., she accepted a life-long restriction on her ability to disclose classified and classifiable information.” Others may have disclosed it, and “may well have warranted investigation” for their disclosures, but “these circumstances do not absolve Ms. Wilson of her own secrecy obligations.” David B. Smallman, a lawyer for Ms. Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, said that an appeal was under consideration.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13brfs-CIADIDNTVIOL_BRF.html

[Lerkfish]

1. weird, I can see both sides of this equally well.

because of this one statement...

“When Ms. Wilson elected to serve with the C.I.A., she accepted a life-long restriction on her ability to disclose classified and classifiable information.” Others may have disclosed it, and “may well have warranted investigation” for their disclosures, but “these circumstances do not absolve Ms. Wilson of her own secrecy obligations.”

[Hissyspit]

5. When I saw her speak last week, she said that everything that was redacted was

designed to hide the fact that she was a CIA employee before 2002, which is absurd.

They were trying to keep her from publishing the book. It was all political. The Wilsons have had every legal recourse they have taken blocked. It's all political.

[Lerkfish]

6. I agree that's the most likely explanation

but I"m saying I can see it from both sides.

[TheWraith]

2. It's Valerie Plame Wilson, not the other way around. Just FYI. nt

[sabra]

3. oops, thanks!

made the edit :hi:

[peacetalksforall]

4. Weird. I went to the article and expected at least a detailed article that would explain

the bizarre comment that seems to infer that she did something wrong - like revealing herself.

It's the CIA and the right wing organization against a woman and her cover employer can't back her up - it was also the CIA.

Very, very bizarre wording. Dis-reality in action.

[David Zephyr]

8. There's more to this story than we will ever know.

.

[defendandprotect]

7. k i c k

[niyad]

9. let's see--chief judge dennis jacobs, bush sr appt.

it is my belief that, whenever we read about decisions of the circuit courts, etc. , that it should be clearly indicated who appointed each of the judges.