Naming of CIA agent: source named

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Oct 1, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Will there be some jail time for two more of Dubya's minions? Perhaps Halliburton should diversify into supplying KY jelly.,12271,1582376,00.html

  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.
  3. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    ctauch - always one to spoil some good gossip. :wink:
  4. So much for the "IT WAS KARL ROVE!" conspirazoids.
  5. 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...

    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.

    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).

    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. 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.

    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.

    How about just simply married, no name no nothing. I sure there are guidelines that the CIA has with resepct to this ;-)

    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.

    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.

    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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.

    The investigation was authorised by the VP's office. Is it sensible to contend that they would be responisble for tasking specific personnel?

    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.

    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.

    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.

  9. Did you actually bother to read the Post article?
  10. 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".
  11. 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
    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.
  12. 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):

    :lol: Keep trying mate. You'll get the hang of it eventually.
  13. (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:

    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.
  14. 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?