Naming of CIA agent: source named

#1
Will there be some jail time for two more of Dubya's minions? Perhaps Halliburton should diversify into supplying KY jelly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1582376,00.html


An investigation into a White House intelligence leak was nearing its conclusion yesterday after a New York Times reporter, jailed in July for refusing to testify, identified Vice-President Dick Cheney's leading aide as her main source.
Judith Miller was released from a prison in Virginia, where she had spent 12 weeks, and appeared in a federal court in Washington yesterday to give her account of a scandal that has been hanging over the administration for two years.

Speaking to journalists after the closed-door hearing, she said she had been permitted to testify by her source. "This was in the form of a personal letter and, most important, a telephone call to me at the jail. I concluded from this that my source genuinely wanted me to testify," she said.
Miller did not name that source in public, but lawyers in the case named Lewis Libby, the vice-president's chief of staff, as the government official she had spoken to in July 2003, about a CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame.

Ms Plame is the wife of an administration critic, Joseph Wilson, who accused the White House of blowing her cover in retribution for his claims that the US had fabricated allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Mr Wilson, a former ambassador, had said he had been sent to Africa by the CIA to look for evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases and had found none, contrary to claims by the president.

The scandal threatens the White House directly. Another journalist, Time magazine's Matt Cooper, has named Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, as his source for revealing Ms Plame's identity. Rove and Libby, two of the most powerful behind-the-scenes figures in the administration, have said they revealed that Mr Wilson's wife worked in the CIA and had been instrumental in sending him on the fact-finding mission. But lawyers for both officials insist they did not break the law, as they did not provide her name, and did not know she was undercover.

Critics say identifying her as Mr Wilson's wife was tantamount to naming her.

The case is coming to a climax at a time when the Bush administration is mired in scandal. Last month, one of the White House's leading budget officials, David Safavian, was arrested on perjury charges. A top Republican ally in Congress, Tom DeLay, was charged on Wednesday with violating election laws, and a Pentagon analyst, Lawrence Franklin, was yesterday reported to have agreed to plead guilty in a case involving the transfer of military secrets to pro-Israel lobbyists.
 
#2
And she finally breaks her silence.

That is the story and nothing else.

I will be very surprised if the grand jury delivers anything but a no bill to Fitzgerald, with respect to outting Ms. Plame...seeing that 1) she was not a covert agent 2) was not named by either Libby or Rove and 3) Wilson himself outted her year(s) earlier in a bio he posted on the net.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
ctauch - always one to spoil some good gossip. :wink:
 
#4
So much for the "IT WAS KARL ROVE!" conspirazoids.
 
#5
ctauch said:
1) she was not a covert agent
Former intelligence officials confirmed Plame's cover was an invention and that she used other false identities and affiliations when working overseas. "All it was was a telephone and a post office box," said one former intelligence official who asked not to be identified. "When she was abroad she had a more viable cover."
From the Globe (10/10/03). So, she used false identities, but she was not a covert agent. Ah, the beauty of semantics. Which leads me to...

ctauch said:
2) was not named by either Libby or Rove
Ah yes, the lovely "I didn't name her, I just referred to her as some husband's wife" excuse. Very popular in court. Works every time. Bollocks.

Matt Cooper said:
As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.
From Time Magazine (07/25/05). No one involved has disputed Cooper's testimony. Which could mean that he spoke the truth, believe it or not. (Insert evil liberal conspiracy here).

ctauch said:
3) Wilson himself outted her year(s) earlier in a bio he posted on the net.
Not true. Actually, all he wrote was that "he is married to the former Valerie Plame". He writes that because she's his WIFE. What should he write? "I'm married to a woman who isn't involved in anything secret but whose name I can't reveal"?
How many politicos forget to mention their wife in their bio? Now, THAT would be suspicious.

All I'm saying, is you can't complain about Democrats being crooked and then let your own guys get away with it. Spin, spin, spin...

Oh, and the Libby thing is nothing new, seeing that Libby was already named by Cooper. Why that stupid went to prison in order to protect someone who had already given a waiver of confidentiality to Cooper, I cannot fathom.
Maybe Libby didn't want to give her one because she's from the Slimes!

Speaking of the NYT group, bunch of arrses. Some of the stuff they write and op-ed is so off the reality scale, I just ignore it ("Don't punish college students for taking drugs").
They own both the NYT and the Boston Globe. Every time the NYT headlines something they think is controversial (like earlier this month, "Woman willing to give up jobs to raise kids"), the Globe latches onto the article for a week like it was written by the Messiah ("In a controversial article published in the New York Times...").
I wish the media would go back to reporting instead of commenting...
 
#6
cheesypoptart said:
ctauch said:
1) she was not a covert agent
Former intelligence officials confirmed Plame's cover was an invention and that she used other false identities and affiliations when working overseas. "All it was was a telephone and a post office box," said one former intelligence official who asked not to be identified. "When she was abroad she had a more viable cover."
From the Globe (10/10/03). So, she used false identities, but she was not a covert agent. Ah, the beauty of semantics. Which leads me to...
No semantics. At the time of her outting she was no longer in covert ops. If she was not a covert agent when her name was mentioned or her identity was eluded to then no law was broken.

cheesypoptart said:
ctauch said:
2) was not named by either Libby or Rove
Ah yes, the lovely "I didn't name her, I just referred to her as some husband's wife" excuse. Very popular in court. Works every time. balls.

Matt Cooper said:
As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.
From Time Magazine (07/25/05). No one involved has disputed Cooper's testimony. Which could mean that he spoke the truth, believe it or not. (Insert evil liberal conspiracy here).
Remember what was going on at that time. Wilson set out on a campaign to slam the adimistration and stated in interviews and op-ed pieces that VP Chenney and Libby sent him to Niger to investigate Iraq's attempts to secure yellow cake. Even went so far as to say they [VP and Libby] tried to get him to lie about the findings.

Reports, (ones actually doing their jobs) asked Rove and Libby whether it was true that the VP sent him. No his wife got him the job no one in the WH had anything to do with Wilson's selection for the assignment. In short Wilson is lying, as such consider the source.


cheesypoptart said:
ctauch said:
3) Wilson himself outted her year(s) earlier in a bio he posted on the net.
Not true. Actually, all he wrote was that "he is married to the former Valerie Plame". He writes that because she's his WIFE. What should he write? "I'm married to a woman who isn't involved in anything secret but whose name I can't reveal"?
How many politicos forget to mention their wife in their bio? Now, THAT would be suspicious.
How about just simply married, no name no nothing. I sure there are guidelines that the CIA has with resepct to this ;-)

cheesypoptart said:
All I'm saying, is you can't complain about Democrats being crooked and then let your own guys get away with it. Spin, spin, spin...
Not spinning anything. Rove and Libby are accussed (not charged) of a violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is a crime. Yet, when you read that law you will clearly see that there does seem to be evidence to support any charges under that act.

cheesypoptart said:
Oh, and the Libby thing is nothing new, seeing that Libby was already named by Cooper. Why that stupid went to prison in order to protect someone who had already given a waiver of confidentiality to Cooper, I cannot fathom.
Maybe Libby didn't want to give her one because she's from the Slimes!
Libby and Rove granted waivers for every report that pointed a finger at them. Miller is now saying she wanted to make sure the waiver from Libby was not issued under durest....right. Furthermore, Miller had reached agreement with the prosecutor that she would only anser questions with respect to Libby and noone else. Things that make you go hmmmm. There is more to this story, and I speculate she is really protecting Wilson.

cheesypoptart said:
Speaking of the NYT group, bunch of arrses. Some of the stuff they write and op-ed is so off the reality scale, I just ignore it ("Don't punish college students for taking drugs").
They own both the NYT and the Boston Globe. Every time the NYT headlines something they think is controversial (like earlier this month, "Woman willing to give up jobs to raise kids"), the Globe latches onto the article for a week like it was written by the Messiah ("In a controversial article published in the New York Times...").
I wish the media would go back to reporting instead of commenting...
Amen! The media doesn't report anymore and the line between op-ed and straight reporting is so stepped over it doesn't exist. In recent days the whole Bennett rucus, to inflating reports of anti-war protests...

Regardless of wheter you are on the left or the right, you have to be appalled with the integrity of the media today. They have become a political tool and nothing more.
 
#8
Just out of pure curiosity, even as devout Republicans, are you really comfortable with having someone like Karl Rove being influential in decisions that as servicemen, affect your lives?
 
#9
Ctauch said:
No semantics. At the time of her outting she was no longer in covert ops. If she was not a covert agent when her name was mentioned or her identity was eluded to then no law was broken.
This is immaterial Ctauch. She was both a Case Officer and a Reports Officer in the DO and was working in the DO at the time. The CIA is obsessive over protecting sources and methods and the law exists for this very reason, not so much to protect the officers as to protect sources and methods. Bear in mind, not even the analysts in the DI know who is working in the DO.

Reports, (ones actually doing their jobs) asked Rove and Libby whether it was true that the VP sent him. No his wife got him the job no one in the WH had anything to do with Wilson's selection for the assignment. In short Wilson is lying, as such consider the source.
The investigation was authorised by the VP's office. Is it sensible to contend that they would be responisble for tasking specific personnel?

How about just simply married, no name no nothing. I sure there are guidelines that the CIA has with resepct to this
Um, no they don't actually (and I checked). They weren't expecting people in the West Wing to start revealing sources and methods to reporters.

Not spinning anything. Rove and Libby are accussed (not charged) of a violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is a crime. Yet, when you read that law you will clearly see that there does seem to be evidence to support any charges under that act.
You, me or anyone else doesn't get to decide that, especially when we don't know what evidence the investigation has unearthed. A Grand Jury and a jury do and that's how the legal system works.

Libby and Rove granted waivers for every report that pointed a finger at them. Miller is now saying she wanted to make sure the waiver from Libby was not issued under durest....right. Furthermore, Miller had reached agreement with the prosecutor that she would only anser questions with respect to Libby and noone else. Things that make you go hmmmm. There is more to this story, and I speculate she is really protecting Wilson.
Or perhaps trying to maintain journalists ability to protect confidentiality to ensure that potential sources do not dry up. She is seen as someone who will protect sources, so touts will seek her out, plus there's a big book deal in there somewhere. Rather mutually self serving actually (spells in jail excepted of course)

Incidentally, I talked with a colleague of mine today who made a very good point. As p1ssed-off as CIA is with the revealing of the identity of a covert officer, they welcome a trial even less since it will simply reveal more information about sources and methods than has already been revealed. While they support the Act, they wish for it to serve as a deterrent. They would like, more than anything, for the whole thing to just disappear.

EDITED FOR TYPOS
 
#10
tomahawk6 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html?nav=rss_politics
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011845.php

Evidently there is no criminal violation by Rove or Libby. There is speculation that the prosecutor may file conspiracy charges although no criminal act has been committed. I think this matter like the DeLay case is political rather than criminal.
Did you actually bother to read the Post article?
 
#11
No, he linked to Powerline, so it's fair to conclude he'd be claiming no-one did anything wrong even if video of Libby tearing Plame's head off and w-anking down the hole appeared.

EDIT: That should of course have read "hole".
 
#12
crabtastic said:
Not spinning anything. Rove and Libby are accussed (not charged) of a violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is a crime. Yet, when you read that law you will clearly see that there does seem to be evidence to support any charges under that act.
You, me or anyone else doesn't get to decide that, especially when we don't know what evidence the investigation has unearthed. A Grand Jury and a jury do and that's how the legal system works.
So I'm not going to reply to all since you seem to try and put words in my mouth. I clearly stated that if you read the law, based on what we know from reports, the evidence does not support a charge under the act.

Bugger all you have a serious problem with reading don't you. If you look up further you will see that I have already acknowledge the fact that a Grand Jury will decide this issue but commented
I will be very surprised if the grand jury delivers anything but a no bill to Fitzgerald, with respect to outting Ms. Plame
All reports now are that Fitzgerald may be going after a conspiracy indictment...that glorious catch all when all else fails charge conspiracy and try and convience a group of people to stupid to get out of jury duty there was an evil plan.
 
#13
Um, no. Actually I was quoting you. Never mind.

As for the grand jury, I've said it before, but you don't seem to be able to abosrb the concept so I'll try one more time. Right now, you or I don't know anything about what sort of evidence might be presented to the Grand Jury. Therefore to try to argue that there is no case to answer is based on nothing more than conjecture.

You might come to be right. the Grand Jury might, in time, decide that there is no case to answer and indeed even then, an indictment is not a conviction. Until then though, it would be folly to try to reach a sensible conclusion when you don't have access to the information they have.

One more thing, it may well come to pass that there will be no criminal charges to answer. However, now it has been confirmed that both Rove and Libby gave information (perhaps inadvertently, if you take the Bush supporters' line) that allowed sources and methods to be revealed to the media. In such a case they would not be criminals, but instead would be fcukwits. Unfortunately being a moron is not a criminal offence, but either way, is there a place for people in the highest levels of government that have a problem with knowing when to keep their mouths shut?

Oh, one other thing (sorry PTP, can't resist):

Bugger all you have a serious problem with reading don't you.
:lol: Keep trying mate. You'll get the hang of it eventually.
 
#14
(Must have hit a raw nerve somewhere, Ctauch has had another meltdown and resorted to sending abusive PMs again rather than engage the topic here.)

There are grounds to suggest that you don't need to name an individual to be held liable under the IIPA:

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent
to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)
The key here is the term 'intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent'. If this is the case, Libby and Rove's only defence would be an ignorance of the fact that as a member of the Clandestine Service in the DO, Plame was protected under rules and laws protecting sources and methods. Once again, not necessarily criminal, just negligent and/or stupid and, one might argue, still grounds for dismissal.
 
#15
Message from Ctauch: he's refusing to debate the issue because apparently I keep on changing the subject. He seems to think that I have validated his point by "trying to post something to refute [him]". Go figure. :roll: WHAT I POSTED WAS THE LAW THAT YOU ARE SO FOND OF CITING!

It is apparently clear to all reading what a full blown dolt I am. So, please, could fellow arrsers please enlighten me so I might be able to better debate the issue with the above named master of the Socratic Method?
 
#16
According to the radio this morning, Karl Rove has been asked to give a further statement. It was also reported that he has been told that he may not escape arrest.

He should take advantage of the forthcoming weeks to enjoy some sodomy-free shower time!
 
#17
Send Karl a gift. Show him you care.

Karl Rove
Deputy Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Here's some practical stuff for him:
www.soaponarope.com :twisted:

From Turdblossom to Ass Tulip in 6 months. :twisted:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
watertight The NAAFI Bar 32
ExPara The Intelligence Cell 6
msr Army Reserve 32

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top