Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Latest Libby Filings!! | Main | The Pain Of Kaus »

September 18, 2006

Comments

T Miller

Her status may be questionable to us, but the CIA did somehow convince Justice under Ashcroft to take up the matter.

Cecil Turner

Now, frankly, I am not much interested in their main theme, which is a dispute over whether David Corn "outed" Valerie Plame himself with his July 16, 2003 article.

I don't think that's the point of contention. Per the IIPA, the critical piece of information is the "covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." Toensing undoubtedly knows that, and thus Corn couldn't possibly be "outing" Plame. Toensing rather appears interested in Corn's source, who would be knowingly blabbing about her covertness.

Also, the element of the crime that appears least sustainable to me is the same:

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
It's hard to see how that's compatible with a Langley desk job, especially if she's doing things like introducing her hubby at interagency meetings. The five-year criteria looks like the second-biggest fly in the ointment (or perhaps they're the same size). Toensing hits both.

Sue

What if Fitzgerald was investigating the Espionage Act? That is the only Act he mentions by name in the Presser.

maryrose

Let's put Victoria and David Corn side by side on the Fox network and then do a poll to see who is more believable. Victoria would win hands down. Corn comes across like a slick used car salesman.

Sara (Squiggler)

And the most operative words are "intelligence relationship to the United States," which is far more broad than having to protect a specific "covert" assignment identity. No one who drives to Langley each day is trying to conceal an intellignence relationship.

And let's not forget that the agency took no steps to get an agreement of confidentiality from Wilson before he acted as their agent. If there was any effort to conceal Valerie's intelligence relationship they certainly would have gone to better lengths to protect her and them from any mention by Wilson regarding his Niger trip. They didn't know what he'd say. But the law says they have to make affirmative (preemptive) efforts to conceal.

clarice

TM, I really trust you when you say you are not burying the evidence fot the ant-Toensing argument. LOL

It's not just that she drafted the law, it's that while at DoJ she handled these referrals regularly. And forget the driving to Langley business, there's much stronger evidence that the agency never met one of those requirements--establishing that they did everything in its power to prevent disclosure of her identity. For Chrissakes, it was the agency thru Harlow, that confirmed her employment to Novak.


I know fro cases I've handled the agency never would confirm or deny anyone's employment. In fact, when Toensing left the government, she set up a special panel of security clearance holding attys just to handle civil litigation matters respecting CIA employees because the agency would not release their names/pension info/ salaries etc for such litigation except under very stringent secrecy arrangements.

noah

Pardon me, but the debate is tiresome. Fitz knows the answer but we (the little people) aren't entitled to know apparently. Could be she is but no one fulfills the other requirements for prosecution.

And I very seriously doubt TM's contention that Novak's article was crucial for spy-catchers...if it was then they are a pretty clueless bunch!

Rick Ballard

TM,

According to the Foreign Service Act of 1980 under CHAPTER 5—CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS
AND ASSIGNMENTS:

SEC. 505. 80 TEMPORARY DETAILS.—
A period of duty of not more than six months in duration by a member of the Service shall be considered a temporary detail and shall not be considered an assignment within the meaning of this chapter.
That definition certainly pertains to the DoS - whether the CIA follows the same rules is a different question.

verner

It seems to me noah, that going to Jordan and working with Jordanian Intelligence would have been a lot more useful for the serious spy catchers anyway. They already had her in the book (and in Who's Who too! LOL)

I guaran- damn-tee you, that broad did not go to Jordan as any NOC. She might have still used Brewster Jennings with the neighbors at pot-lucks, but she went to Jordan under official cover. For all practical purposes, she wasn't "transitioning," she had "transitioned." And if that was not so, then Corn would have shouted it from the mountains. Instead, he has to use slimeball language (as usual) and hope we wouldn't catch on.

maryrose

That is an excellent point Rick. Though I agree with Noah-the debate is tiresome because who are you going to trust on this issue Victoria Toensing who has worked in the dept. or a partisan hack writer like Corn

Dell

CIA operates domestically and always has, so she may have been protected under the act as an informant or something else other than a CIA operations officer.

The service star and awards and benfits are usually gone after toward the end of their careers. They all see psychiatrists and usually have a 'diablity' towards the end to get the benefits and awards.

Plame is going to claim she was disabled. Most CIA operations officers claim this.

Larry and Jim both confirmed who she was going back to the 'farm' training. It was done at a time when the Iran desk was being created. Like Plame, they have agendas behind being leaked or leaking.

Fitzgerald would not do his job and we now have CIA analysts working at NSA/DIA and this is a mistake. Everyone in the military knows this.

Plame leaked herself at 'Vanity Fair' confirming she was a CIA operations officer, paramilitarily trained. The next day 10 operations officers were outed(assassinated) in Iraq. This was a plan, but unfortunately, the Iraqi police(who are now going to jail) waited until she confirmed herself-it could have been someone like the VP if they waited.

clarice

Toensing handled hundreds if not thousands of these referrals. From the outset she argued the only possible applicable law was the IIPA and it didn't fit AND if the Agency honestly filled out the 11 question affidavit, there could have been no predicate for the investigation. DoJ twice turned it back (apparently for that reason). Why did they depart from law and practice?And then only after a well-placed leak to Andrea Mitchell(never investigated) and after Armitage's confession...

Byron York wrote about the genesis of the case and the letter some time ago. Did the Dept bypass normal procedure because of political-press pressure? Did the case proceed without the necessary affidavit?

"It is not clear what accounted for the Justice Department's delay in beginning the Wilson investigation. But the chronology, along with the information in the Kedian letter, suggests that the Wilson matter was the subject of an extended consultation between the CIA and the Justice Department, in that the department took no action on the CIA's request until news of Tenet's intervention was leaked to the press. At that point, with political pressure rising, the department began an investigation. Three months later, with political pressure even more intense, the attorney general and his deputy recused themselves from the matter and appointed Fitzgerald."

https://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:dGwSLPWQnzYJ:www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603140832.asp+Tenet+DoJ+Libby&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>the real cover up?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Verner is exactly right. She couldn't have gotten to first base with Jordanian Intelligence if she was operating as from Brewster-Jennings. She had to be known to them as CIA. So, they weren't, 'taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States'.

And, so, Patrick Fitzgerald lied to a Federal Court to get the authority to put Judy Miller in jail.

cathyf
However, Ms. Toensing reiterates a point she has made many times - being "covert" is a matter of statutory definition under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act;
And I'll reiterate a point I've made a gazillion times, too. Being "classified" is a matter of statutory definition. It is defined in various executive orders, the latest being EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292, and the last 3 or 4 of which have contained this language:
Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:
  1. conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
  2. prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
  3. restrain competition; or
  4. prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
Given what we know about Ms Plame's odd employment history, there is at least the appearance that the only thing that the Brewster-Jennings "cover" was covering was some shady scheme to keep her on the payroll during a period where 1/3 of the CIA was being laid off and the CIA didn't have any real work for her to do. Now it's not like gold-bricking on the federal payroll is any source of shock or anything, but no matter how many times you stamp "classified" on something, if it's really just an attempt to do of any of these four things then it's not classified. Period. And it looks to me like the CIA has problems with (1), (2) and (4). (I can make a non-serious argument for (3), but that would be strictly for amusement purposes, since piling on is so unsporting.)
verner

Clarice, the only evidence any of the Wilsonistas have to claim that she was "covert" and subject to IPPA is the mysterious "referral" letter--a letter, shall we add, that we are not allowed to see, and that Fitz (very much to his own sorry benifit) is keeping from Libby's team. And as you point out, the whole referral seems pretty damned weird.

Toensing has been right from the beginning. One mistake? Maybe. But a whole string of them? We're talking major smoke and mirrors here.

clarice

I really wish I knew if anyone is investigating this? Mac hints they are, but if so it seems to be well-hidden from view.

topsecretk9

--And, so, Patrick Fitzgerald lied to a Federal Court to get the authority to put Judy Miller in jail.--

Or someone lied to him?

verner

I'm not holding my breath Clarice. I think the administration wants all of this to just go away. Goss, for all of his faults, did a pretty good job of clearing out the refuse, we can only hope that Hadley is doing the same.

There is probable cause to hook Val up to a polygraph and find out who she has been leaking classified infromation to (obviously Corn) She's still subject to non-disclosure laws. They're not going to do it though.

cathyf
--And, so, Patrick Fitzgerald lied to a Federal Court to get the authority to put Judy Miller in jail.--

Or someone lied to him?

Well, isn't a filing in Federal Court under penalty of perjury? I say we charge Fitzgerald with perjury and obstruction and let a jury sort it out.

And note, it wasn't just "a" federal court. Fitzgerald lied his way all the way up to the Supreme Court to put Miller in jail.

topsecretk9

speaking of my last comment...a theme to ponder

A former attorney for the CIA denied that the government knowingly presented false evidence in the case of a former operative who has spent 20 years in prison for selling arms to Libya.

A federal judge threw out the 1983 conviction against 75-year-old Edwin P. Wilson on Tuesday, saying the government failed to correct information about Wilson's service to the CIA that it admitted internally was false.

Retired U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin, who was CIA general counsel at the time of Wilson's trial, told the Houston Chronicle in Thursday's editions that officials did not intend to present a false affidavit.

"They are fine people," he said of the federal attorneys involved. "And there were differences - that was all. At the time it was written, I can assure you the people who prepared it thought it was a proper affidavit."


October 30, 2003
https://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/27-10302003-187935.html

Wilson's a Liar

Just as the Clintonistas did not count on Monica keeping that blue dress, so the Wilsonistas did not count on the existence of a Victoria Toensing who actually helped draft the IIPA (and of course they did not count on Dick Armitage showing up as the actual leaker.) and of a blogosphere that would start fact-checking them all and not stop. They thought they could baffle the press with bullshit about "White House Crimes" and force President Bush to fire Karl Rove. They all knew there was no IIPA violation to begin with. They just kept throwing their crap at the wall and eventually it stuck. Now poor David Corn is just trying to salvage a tiny bit of his own reputation. It is to laugh. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

clarice

Maybe in the investigation of the NSA leak--which I think porbably involved some DoJ lawyers--this has come out? Or in that same investigation, it came out in interviews with CIA employees? Or--has this turned up in the prison leak case? Would the CIA IG have reviewed the referral correspondence and noticed the rotting fish smell?

maryrose

I think Val and Joe's part in this kerfuffle will come to light now that the major msm have abandoned them and their lawsuit is in the works. Too much exposure and I wager the lawsuit will disappear. They have squeezed all the blood they are going to get out of this turnip.

topsecretk9

from Clarice's link:

After consultation with the CIA," Kedian wrote, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable."

The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby. In addition, the documents are protected from disclosure because they contain inter-agency, pre-decisional preliminary evaluations and recommendations of government officials covered by the deliberative process privilege. Moreover, the documents also contain legal analysis and opinion prepared by a CIA attorney, as well as communications between the CIA attorney and the Department of Justice, that are protected from disclosure by attorney-client communications privilege and the attorney work product privilege.

The Houston Chronicle article above, could have "CIA legal analysis" and communications betwxt DOJ been a pissing match between DOJ and CIA legal got their nose bent that Doj wasn't buying it and went to Tenet? And since the article states "information about [Edwin] Wilson's service to the CIA that it admitted internally was false" could that the case here too?

Just a thought.

lurker

One problem with Larry, Jim, and EW's argument is that they honed in on just one and only one category that they used to justify Plame's status as NOC or covert or whatever.

Toensing's argument is that in order to verify that a CIA operative or employee or whatever is NOC or covert is that all categories must be met to satisfy the status as NOC or covert.

Even a small trip to Jordan when CIA made no effort in keeping Plame's status and identity a secret does not qualify her as NOC or covert.

CIA's actions complicated by DOJ's twice-rejections establishes a fog of cloud over the CIA Referral letter to this very day.

What convinced DOJ and Comey to assign a SP to this case? Schumer? Conyers? MSM? Or all of the above?

clarice

Well, here's Mac today:
"I think it’s time for Senator Chuck Schumer to come clean before his real involvement is fully disclosed - because make no mistake, it’s coming" Mark Levin has invited him to come on his show and answer some questions. He's not responded yet.

JM Hanes

What sort of "communications between the CIA attorney and the Department of Justice" would qualify for "attorney-client communications privilege"? For that matter, how does a CIA attorney qualify as a DoJ "client" in the first place?

clarice

I think that's standard and accepted when the DoJ is representing another agency in Court as they would be in prosecuting something after receipt of a referral letter.

Les Nessman

Heh. And just think...none of this 'was she covrt or not' matters in this case. Even if Plame WAS covert....NOBODY FROM THE BUSH ADMIN 'OUTED' HER ANYWAY!

Like Seinfeld sez: It's a show about nothing!

JM Hanes

TM:

If the dispute over whether Corn outed Plame doesn't interest you, how about a proper Fisking of his dizzying definitions of covert/NOC/operative alongside his tortured explanation of Val's transitioning to and fro? He outright contradicts himself more than once in his erstwhile self-defense. Given your eye for the absurd, it could be highly entertaining.

JM Hanes

I'm not sure that the CIA was rebuffed twice by DoJ. It's my impression that they only called for a rewrite once. I believe Polly USA corrected me on this one -- and provided a timeline she had worked up -- a few months (which seem like years!) ago.

Wilson's a liar

JMH - check out AJ Strata today. He fisks Corn quite well!

Oh, and BTW, the Justice Department is basically the "law firm" for all of the federal government. So it is plausible that communication between lawyers at CIA and DOJ is priveleged. CIA no doubt made sure there were some priveleged items in that referral precisely so it could be protected from prying eyes. I've seen this done many times in government as well as corporate life.

BumperStickerist

Minor quibble -

Larry Johnson's a former intel guy, not a retired intel guy.

The Larester left the biz to go work for the Bush administration and then went into private industry and then, judging from his blog, into some private institution with wi-fi access.

---

Dale in Atlanta

NOC: if you want to find out if Plame was a "NOC", find out what type of passport she travelled on?

If she travelled on a Diplomatic or "Official" passport, it's very likely the CIA did NOT consider her a "NOC"!

People who travel overseas, on those type of passports, are IMMEDIATELY suspected of being CIA, even if they are Not!

If she travelled overseas, on her "business" trips, with a standard civilian "Blue" passport, then I'd say she was a "NOC", and I'd say the IIPA does NOT apply!

I strongly suggest, especially on her trips to Jordan, she was using a "black" Diplomatic or "red" Offcial passport, which would make her NOT a "NOC"; but I also suspect, that LJ, Wilson, et. al, will lie about it!

Trips overseas: with 40+ years exp, with travelling overseas via the Military and State Department, for me and my family, everyone knows, that your status depends upon WHERE YOUR BILLET is assigned!

So, IF, her Billet was at CIA HQ's, then, even short business trips overseas, did NOT make her "covert/NOC", whatever!

If her Billet, when she was "outted" was Assigned OVERSEAS, then she was a NOC!

The only exception, are Offical Orders, which transfer you overseas to a temp billet/job overseas; called TAD in the military, TDY in the Civilian world!

IF she was on Offcial TDY orders (not sure the CIA calls them that..?); then her billet was officially transferred overseas, and she's "covert/NOC"

If she travelled overseas, on official business, but without TDY orders, then, her behind was officially in Langley, and she can complain until the cows come home, she wasn't "officially" overseas!

Anyway who had confirming/non-confirming info, I'll be glad to read it!

Syl

lurker

Toensing's argument is that in order to verify that a CIA operative or employee or whatever is NOC or covert is that all categories must be met to satisfy the status as NOC or covert.

No. I think we have to start being careful about the terms we use, just as Toensing is.

If we're not as careful as she is, we will have missed the damned point.

Classified status and NOC are working definitions.

Covert is ONLY a statutory definition.

And 'covert' only applies if all the stipulations in the IIPA are met.

So Valery's classified was, most likely, classified. She was also a NOC.

But she was not covert because the definition did not apply to her.

BTW, Clarice said:

I know fro cases I've handled the agency never would confirm or deny anyone's employment.

This was true during the time Clarice was there. That changed, however, during the Clinton years. It cost too much money to make sure tha no CIA employee's info was ever made public so it was decided that the employees who were 'clerical' and such would no longer have that protection.

That's why Novak could call up the CIA and ask about an employee. During prior years there was no point in doing so because the CIA would neither confirm nor deny nufink about nobody.

There have ALWAYS been NOC types working at Langley and these have classified status and are still neither confirmed/nor denied.

(As I've said many times, Harlow goofed big time on that one.)

clarice

Thanks for clarifying that, Syl

topsecretk9

very interesting...from new little theory emerging, HERE, and HERE

Scott Muller was appointed the CIA Director of the General Counsel office on OCt. 23, 2002

He will oversee the CIA’s legal affairs and serve as Tenet’s top legal adviser.
, so he was in charge the Summer of 2003

Here in Time, "Palace Revolt" starts with (sorry, long paste)

James Comey, a lanky, 6-foot-8 former prosecutor who looks a little like Jimmy Stewart, resigned as deputy attorney general in the summer of 2005. The press and public hardly noticed. Comey's farewell speech, delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, contained all the predictable, if heartfelt, appreciations. But mixed in among the platitudes was an unusual passage. Comey thanked "people who came to my office, or my home, or called my cell phone late at night, to quietly tell me when I was about to make a mistake; they were the people committed to getting it right—and to doing the right thing—whatever the price. These people," said Comey, "know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."

One of those people—a former assistant attorney general named Jack Goldsmith—was absent from the festivities and did not, for many months, hear Comey's grateful praise. In the summer of 2004, Goldsmith, 43, had left his post in George W. Bush's Washington to become a professor at Harvard Law School. Stocky, rumpled, genial, though possessing an enormous intellect, Goldsmith is known for his lack of pretense; he rarely talks about his time in government. In liberal Cambridge, Mass., he was at first snubbed in the community and mocked as an atrocity-abetting war criminal by his more knee-jerk colleagues. ICY WELCOME FOR NEW LAW PROF, headlined The Harvard Crimson.

They had no idea. Goldsmith was actually the opposite of what his detractors imagined. For nine months, from October 2003 to June 2004, he had been the central figure in a secret but intense rebellion of a small coterie of Bush administration lawyers. Their insurrection, described to NEWSWEEK by current and former administration officials who did not wish to be identified discussing confidential deliberations, is one of the most significant and intriguing untold stories of the war on terror.

These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law....

...But somehow, in the vetting of Goldsmith, one of his important views was overlooked. Goldsmith is no executive-power absolutist. What's more, his friends say, he did not intend to be a patsy for Addington and the hard-liners around Cheney. Goldsmith was not the first administration lawyer to push back against Addington & Co. At the CIA, general counsel Scott Muller had caused a stir by ruling that CIA agents could not join with the military in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. But Goldsmith became a rallying point for Justice Department lawyers who had legal qualms about the administration's stance...


Something to think about.

boris

riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution

But have no problem conspiring to ride rough-shod over the elected administration fighting a war.

Something to ponder alright.

clarice

Boris, you get right to the point.
I like that in a man. *wink*

clarice

Here's an early note on Comey and Fitz, including the kind of prosecutors they were and Comey's battles with the WH. (I notice our pofarmer commented there.)
https://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:1QCopHBDLdoJ:neveryetmelted.com/%3Fcat%3D494+James+Comey&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=17> snakes

David Walser

MORE: Lest you doubt the significance - if Ms. Toensing's perspective can be firmly established there are major implications for the Libby trial, starting with, how could Fitzgerald have spent over two years investigating a situation that could not have been criminal and segueing to, what is the meaning of "perjury" or "obstruction" when there is no possibility of an underlying criminal charge?

Put bluntly - if Libby had said to investigators, "You got me - Dick Cheney told me that Valerie Plame had classified status but I blabbed to reporters anyway", neither Cheney nor Libby could have been charged under the IIPA because of the five year rule. And Fitzgerald should have known that when he took Libby's testimony. So what was Fitzgerald investigating - a conspiracy to commit a non-criminal act?

TM, as you may recall, many of us were very upset about this possibility from the outset. It seemed an abuse of prosecutorial power. Jeff, Jerry, et al, assured us that our concerns were unfounded -- the referral from the CIA was proof positive that Fitzgerald was investigating a real crime rather than creating one in his very own perjury lab. Now, it appears that the most likely explanation is that Fitz bought the Corn/Wilson story of an effort to harm Plame as push back for Wilson's speaking truth to power. Since the "outing" was not illegal, Fitzgerald went about finding some other way to punish the evil doers.

This reminds me of when my younger brother was in high school. He started dating the daughter of the local chief of police; something which was not illegal but which displeased the chief to no end. The chief set out to demonstrate to my brother just how miserable the chief could make life if he continued to date the chief's daughter. (He got something like 10 tickets in one day. One was for parking more than 18" from the curb.) I suspect that most supporters of civil liberties would be outraged by the chief's actions, as we were at the time. (Or as I am whenever I think of it.) Why are they so willing to give Fitz a pass on this?

Tom Maguire

Fitz knows the answer but we (the little people) aren't entitled to know apparently.

I am not so sure he does know the answer - it may have dawned on him early on that *not* knowing was much safer - if someone pulled out a memo to Fitzgerald dated Feb 2004 stating flatly that the IIPA did nto apply, it woul dbe harder for him to suppor this investigation than if he simply played "don't ask, don't tell."

Her status may be questionable to us, but the CIA did somehow convince Justice under Ashcroft to take up the matter.

In Fitz we trust - in some circles, that talking point will never grow old.

In fact, the CIA had to kick the DoJ to get them to take up the case, and the CIA would certainly favor an expansive view of the IIPA. Also,it is not their call as to just what law has been broken - they reported (Conyers letter) that classified info had been leaked (which was apparently true, but maybe not illegal.)

and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

I agree the gov't would have a hard time passing that test, but it is (one might argue) more subjective. Also, the statute (oddly) does not say they must be taking "All reasonable" affirmative measures, or anything else - one might argue that if they are taking one or two affirmative measures while also doing ten stupid things, they still qualify.

What if Fitzgerald was investigating the Espionage Act? That is the only Act he mentions by name in the Presser.

Good question, but why did we need the IIPA if the Espionage Act covered the Agee situation?

FWIW, here are the 11 questions that form the basis of the CIA referral. The questions, at least, put th enix on th enotion that Valerie's covert status was carefully evaluated:

1. Date and identity of the article or release disclosing the classified information.

2. Specific statements which are classified and whether the data was properly classified.

3. Whether the classified data (search) disclosed is accurate.

4. Whether the data came from a specific document and, if so, the origin of the document and the name of the individual responsible for the security of the classified data disclosed.

5. The extent of official dissemination of the data.

6. Whether the data has been the subject of prior official releases.

7. Whether the prior clearance for publication or release of the information was sought from proper authorities.

8. Whether the material or portions thereof or enough background data has been published officially or in the press to make an educated speculation on the matter possible.

9. Whether the data can be declassified for the purpose of prosecution and, if so, the name of the person competent to testify concerning the classification.

10. Whether declassification had been decided upon prior to the publication or release of the data.

11. What effect the disclosure of the classified data could have on the national defense.

clarice

Reconcile this piffle from the Fitz presser with his "good leaks" "bad leaks" merde:
"I can say," he announced that day, "that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected. . . . I will say this. I won't touch the specific damage assessment of what specific damage was caused by her compromise"--none has ever been shown--"I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole. I'll let the CIA speak to that, if they wish or not. I will say this: To the CIA people who are going out at a time that we need more human intelligence, . . . they need to know that we will not cast their anonymity aside lightly."

clarice

Could that referral questionairre refer to anything BUT rhe INR which Libby never saw, which Armitage leaked and which he said was in a form that did not alert the reader that Plame was covert?On what other document does her name appear?

Sue

Good question, but why did we need the IIPA if the Espionage Act covered the Agee situation?

Because it didn't. And if she [Plame] didn't fit the definitions of the IIPA, what other law could have been broken in order to keep the investigation going?

And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.

That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply.

I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html>Fitzgerald Press Conference

JJ

Great post!

Always answer the obvious first!

What did David Corn know, and when did he know it?

Florence Schmieg

So someone is looking into Chuckie Shumer's role in all of this. Good. I am convinced he is in it up to his elbows.

Dale in Atlanta

Back when I worked at a certain Government "institution", reading and handling Classified Information, we had a fairly accurate "rule of thumb", that we followed when we read the Washington Post every morning, to see how much/or what CLASSIFIED information was being leaked:

(During the Clinton Administration, I might add...)

Top Secret information took 2 Days to be leaked to the Press, and appeared on the Front Page...

Just plain old Secret information, took 3 days to be leaked to the press, and was always buried back in the mid-sections somewhere!

You could set your calender by it, was so accurate of a "rule of thumb..."


Also, the other thing we had to remember, as "nobodies", we were go to jail for "mishandling" CLASSIFIED information, but the "leakers" ("Govt Officals", senior Military, etc.) would like get to write a book, make millions, and then get out on the lecture circuit, and earn more!

It may sound cynical, but it's pretty damn accurate!

didasko

Hey folks - just thought I'd let you know - I just submitted clarice's WS article on realclearpolitics.com

If it receives enough recommendations, it appears on the home page under ReaderArticles

If so inclined, you can go here ReaderArticles and look for The Case of the Missing Crime

clarice

Thanks, didasko! How nice of you.

lurker

"lurker

Toensing's argument is that in order to verify that a CIA operative or employee or whatever is NOC or covert is that all categories must be met to satisfy the status as NOC or covert.

No. I think we have to start being careful about the terms we use, just as Toensing is.

If we're not as careful as she is, we will have missed the damned point.

Classified status and NOC are working definitions.

Covert is ONLY a statutory definition.

And 'covert' only applies if all the stipulations in the IIPA are met.

So Valery's classified was, most likely, classified. She was also a NOC.

But she was not covert because the definition did not apply to her."

Syl,

Thanks!

What I meant to say was this part:

"And 'covert' only applies if all the stipulations in the IIPA are met."

Outting of a covert agent is a violation of US law as per IIPA and/or Espionage Act but "outting of a NOC" is not a violation of US laws?

Dale in Atlanta has an interesting writeup explaining what is NOC, covert, or not! :)

OT: The SCOTUS Hamdan ruling really screwed things up for the intelligance and military agencies, didn't it?

lurker

Is there enough proof out there confirming Plame as NOC?

lurker

I was the third vote for Reader Article!

Patton

Corn is completely pathetic. If you go back to his original article, as he suggests, he claims to be writing in the hypothetical - thus thinking we are completely stupid.

Its pretty clear from his own words that Wislon clued him into his wife. Corn first claims Novak outed Plame and then turns around and claims even after reading Novaks article he had no clue she was covert.


On a side note, just saw Senator Graham on Fox news equating our CIA with dictatorships secret police. He'll never get my vote, ever.

pATTON

Novak's column is syndicated and is posted on the web. This information appeared, I assume, in hundreds of places. Other nations and foreign intelligence services now knew that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative. At this point, her cover--whatever it might have been--was blown to bits. The fact that Novak did not state she was a "covert" operative is utterly meaningless. (Does the CIA employ non-secret "operatives"?)

OK, SO CORN SAYS NOVAK COMPLETELY BLEW HER COVER BECAUSE HE REPORTED THAT SHE WAS A CIA OPERATIVE WORKING WMD.

SO DAVID, WHAT DID WILSONS JULY 6 ARTICLE ALERT THOSE SAME ‘OTHER NATIONS AND FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SERVICES' THAT JOE WILSON WAS A CIA OPERATIVE WORKING WMD????”

Patton

Corn says ””The reasoning underlying my supposition that Valerie Wilson might be a NOC was simple. Before I wrote the article, I spoke to Joe Wilson.””

NUFF SAID, you can stop right there.

The he says: "He would not confirm or deny that what Novak wrote was true. He would not say whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. Wilson noted that his wife was known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm, and added, "I will not answer questions about my wife." I placed that quote in the piece.

OHH, COME ON CORN, WILSON SAID TO YOU ‘MY WIFE IS KNOWN TO HER FRIENDS AS AN ENERGY ANALYST’??/ AND YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE TRUTH? WHY DIDN’T WILSON JUST SAY, “MY WIFE IS AN ENERGY ANAYST, PERIOD!” THIS WAS CLEARLY A WINK, WINK, NUDGE, NUDGE CORN, WERE NOT BUYING YOUR BS!!

Patton

CIA officers working under nonofficial cover tell friends, relatives, associates that they are businesspeople, writers, consultants, tour guides or whatever--anything but a government official. So a CIA officer who informed acquaintances that she worked for a private energy firm would have to be a NOC. It's elementary.

YEAH, ELEMENTARY CORN, SO YOUR SAYING JOE WILSON MADE IT SO EASY THAT EVEN DAVID CORN COULD FIGURE IT OUT.

SO, WHY COULDN’T THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE FOLKS WHO READ JOE WILSONS OP-ED OF JULY 6TH PEG HIM AS A CIA OPERATIVE???

Patton

So, acording to Corn,

Libby or Rove could have said:

'Well, you know, Joe Wilsons wife tells her neighbors that she is an energy analsyt, but according to some journalists like David Corn, that could very well mean she is an undercover NOC for the CIA'.

that's essentially what he is telling us Wilson conveyed to him.

lurker

Ok, how wide of public knowledge is her employment with CIA known?

lurker

OT:

Exiled Cleric Behind London Protests

Anyone recognize the name?

lurker

OT:

Ten Reasons Why the West Will Lose the War on Terror (the pessimist’s view) Think this is West in general.

A Liberal Who Gets It

How much will a sleeping giant finally wake up? We will see.

lurker

Sorta related to Corn because he co-authored with Isikoff:

Newsweek’s Isikoff willfully misquoted Gonzales torture memo

And Patterico has a few words about this:

NEWSWEEK “Isikoffed” the Gonzales Memo

Enlightened

Question: If a real trip to Niger was made by a reliable operative, and all the protocol was followed, and a real report was sent to the WH in the typical document dumps - who would have (or should have) recieved that report?

I know Wilson says he never filed a report, that his "handlers" did, and he disputes what they reported - blah blah blah.

But IF a report was really filed, and it went through the right channels, and the WH DID recieve it, and it CONFIRMED the YC attempt - who could have diverted or destroyed that report?

And would this person be working in close promixity to the same group at DOJ and CIA that delayed the referral? Meaning the "report" needed to disappear before the "referral" could be sent?

lurker

Blockbuster

Sorta related to this topic.

Rocco

Aldrich Ames was arrested on Feb 21, 1994. A KGB perspective.

But of course Mr. Angleton was right, too. On Feb. 21, 1994, Mr. Ames, the CIA officer who had served in the Soviet Russia division, was arrested by the FBI. He confessed that he had been a KGB mole for almost a decade and had provided the KGB with secrets that compromised more than 100 CIA operations in Russia. Mr. Hanssen was caught seven years later.

Kristof suggests Valerie Plame was on that list.

First, the CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his arrest for espionage in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

People on that list were being murdered. I have a hard time believing Valerie Plame would ever be covert after Ames outed her. And if Brewster-Jennings was used as a cover for Plame, then the KGB had to be suspicious of a front created AFTER Valerie was outed by Ames.

A spokeswoman for Dun & Bradstreet, a New Jersey operator of commercial databases, said Brewster Jennings was first entered into its records on May 22, 1994, but wouldn't discuss the source of the filing.
verner

Rocco, makes ya think that Brewster Jennings wasn't too serious an effort. Kind of like a prop to fool the neighbors, or non espionage types. But the Russians, Cubans etc.--and anyone they shared intel with (Saddam?) whould have seen right through it.

I know everyone is insisting that she was NOC etc., but I think that in her case the term is pretty meaningless and misleading. And it still needs to be clarified what "transitioning" means. Sounds kind of suspicious. What would the CIA need to do to "transition" someone, other than give them a government front job and a new passport? Seems to me, that would have been done very quickly and before they formed JTFI since a lot of her job appears to be interacting with foreign intelligence services like Jordan.

I don't trust anything David Corn or Joe Wilson have to say on the subject.

I think it's more important now than ever to see that referral. I wish they could get Victoria Toensing on Libby's legal team.

clarice

All they need is an affidavit from her, verner.

Maybe someone with some knowledge inside the DoJ is talking to someone about what DoJ did when they heard from Armitage..what he said..who knew..(On tradesports today the odds of Libby being convicted on a single count are now down to 25%)

Kevin Murphy

Just because classified information is published doesn't mean it's declassified. So if Ms. Plame's status with the CIA was classified as Mr. Wilson claims, he leaked classified information to David Corn. And the idea that he didn't actually provide the info because it was does as a series of what ifs doesn't pass the laugh test. Joe Wilson wasn't speculating - he knew.

So we have Joe Wilson deliberating leaking classified info that he knew was classified, and suing others for leaking the very same info. Life is very strange.

cathyf

Not so strange, Kevin, she wasn't classified, either.

Thomas Morrissey

Rocco

Then there are Val's Political Contributions,available to the general Public:

Wilson, Valerie E. Ms.
Washington, DC 20007
Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.
GORE, AL (D)
President
GORE 2000 INC $1,000
primary 04/22/99

Just for comic relief,

Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen

It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.

The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together (search), first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets.

The Federal Election Commission record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."


Wilson — who played an active role in Democrat John Kerry's (search) losing 2004 presidential campaign — said the anti-Bush concert was "great" and told Time that his wife "doesn't recall listing herself as retired."

She doesn't recall lying about her all important C.I.A employment.

MayBee

Corn is too cute by half. He writes as if he only knows what he has written, when in reality he knows (or had access to information about) who his source about Plame's employment was, the fine details of Valerie Plame's status, and what Joe Wilson told him.
He should or could know under what circumstances Plame went to Jordan. For example, did Jordan intelligence think they were dealing with a CIA agent, or for some reason did Jordan Intelligence call Brewster Jennings in to referee a dispute between CIA analysts and scientists?

He could enlighten us on Valerie's transition. Between what the Wilson's Vanity Fair article , Larry Johnson, and David Corn all reported, her transition was in its 6th year. Are we supposed to believe that? Does Corn?

In a book delving into other reporter's sources and details behind what was written, David Corn seems shockingly uncurious about his own prior writings.

verner

Maybe someone with some knowledge inside the DoJ is talking to someone about what DoJ did when they heard from Armitage..what he said..who knew..

Yeah Clarice. And maybe the Wa Po will do an in depth piece on how Schumer and Comey conspired to screw the administration--it's the least they could do after all the damage they've done. Well, I can dream can't I! LOL

Cecil Turner

Just because classified information is published doesn't mean it's declassified. So if Ms. Plame's status with the CIA was classified as Mr. Wilson claims, he leaked classified information to David Corn.

Exactly. And that, I believe, is the point Ms Toensing is making concerning Corn's "covert" article . . . not that he "outed" Ms Plame, but that he must've gotten that tidbit from Wilson. And if Wilson was talking to Corn, who else was he talking to? Further, if Wilson was spreading his wife's employment info all over town, what, exactly was Mr Fitzgerald investigating?

Corn appears to be misunderstanding the point in his response (whether intentionally or not is open to question), but that's no reason to dignify his point as the contention. Toensing clearly states Plame wasn't covert, so it would be impossible to "out" her. And Corn's pretense that he came up with the IIPA accusation on his own beggars belief.

Cecil Turner

I invite other contributions - comments and trackbacks are open.

The CIA's DO website seems to make a similar distinction between "serving" and "travel":

Operations Officers and Collection Management Officers spend a significant portion of their time abroad, on tours of two to four years. Typically, Operations Officers will serve 60-70% of their careers overseas, while Collection Management Officers will be overseas for 30-40% of their careers. Staff Operations Officers, although based in the Washington, DC area, travel overseas on a temporary basis. [emphasis added]
Interestingly, the Hubris description of Plame's duties is a near-perfect match to that of the Staff Operations Officer billet, which is the "travel" example. Not dispositive, but certainly suggestive . . .

verner

And Corn's pretense that he came up with the IIPA accusation on his own beggars belief.

Yes, Cecil, especaially when considering that Corn wrote a book on the CIA. And Phillip Agee to this day is the darling of the Institute for Policy Studies, where Mr. Corn was a resident scholar. He knew she didn't fall under the IIPA. He was just trying to stir things up. And he still will not give a straight answer over Plame's actual status--even though you know damn well he knows. It is of no issue to the Leak case if she was NOC after she served in Athens and adopted Brewster Jennings. What is of issue is her status when Novak's column appeared. It was "classified"? So what. So are most people who work at Langley. But you don't see a special prosecutor named when their names end up in the paper.

Besides, if Valerie is realy some 007, are we really suppose to believe that Joe had no idea what the IIPA was? Come on. He had been saying that they were out to get him since mid June. You mean he would not have discussed it with Val, who would most certainly have known about the IIPA, especially since she had been outed by Ames.

It's starting to sound like the CIA/DOJ Comeyites played fast and loose with the law when that referral was issued. Kind of like, well that didn't work, try this!

Neo

a conspiracy to commit a non-criminal act?

Keep in mind that a few of the Iran-Contra folks did plead to a (later determined) non-crime.

Enlightened

So I gather we are to believe that Valerie Plame was something of an undercover agent like this. (link)https://www.gailsheehy.com/9_11/9_11_art3_11.html

And due to Robert Novak's article, she has endured somewhat of the same treatment.

Oh.Yeah. Right.

Jeff

Cecil

That's a very interesting link you provided. I don't think the distinction works quite the way you suggest. But I'm actually more interested in two points. First, what page(s) of Hubris are you thinking of, because my initial response was that what we've heard of Plame makes her sound more like a Case Management Officer. At a more general level, in any case, the description of the Case Management Officer appears to refute the point that people who are covert under the definition of the IIPA, even with Toensing's more demanding notion of "serve," don't drive to work at Langley.

cathyf

No, Jeff, it suggests that Case Management Officers are not covert under the definition of the IIPA.

...Just another example of that vaunted CIA tradecraft...

verner

Only if it can be assumed that Field Officers have the same level of "cover" that Staff Operations officers, who drive to Langley every day, have. It doesn't say that. All it says is that these positions have "cover." Cover is not equal to the legal term "covert" as Toensing pointed out. And since she wrote the law, she should know.

cathyf

I'm beginning to think that you can make a case that nothing at the CIA is classified either, under 1.7(a)(2). They are nothing but an utter embarrassment to the country.

clarice

I think next time the agency wants to find out anything they should throw the data they have to TM, let him post it, and we'll let the JOMers do it.
(They can use hypotheticals if they want to keep anything quiet.)

Cecil Turner

That's a very interesting link you provided. I don't think the distinction works quite the way you suggest.

Thanks. Again, I don't think it dispositive, but obviously they used the term "serve" for long-term, and "travel" for short-term. That's suggestive, especially since it's the exact group about whom the terminology is in dispute.

First, what page(s) of Hubris are you thinking of, because my initial response was that what we've heard of Plame makes her sound more like a Case Management Officer.

I don't have a copy. I'm relying on Corn's What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA article, wherein he describes her as "an operations officer" and "Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group" and the SSCI excerpt that says:

On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations . . .
Which seems to me to match up awfully well with Staff Operations Officer, both in terminology and the relatively high-level coordination of field agents and briefing senior management. And I didn't see a "Case Management Officer" billet. Do you mean "Collection Management Officer" or do you have another source?

At a more general level, in any case, the description of the Case Management Officer appears to refute the point that people who are covert under the definition of the IIPA, even with Toensing's more demanding notion of "serve," don't drive to work at Langley.

Not sure how you get to that. The only definition of "covert" is in the statute, and it requires overseas "service" (which, as an ex-military guy I would read as a "posting" or "permanent assignment" . . . though their terminology is obviously different, so that's an [educated?] guess).

Lew Clark

Reality check, Jeff!

The IIPA was enacted to protect covert agents working oerseas. Because a CIA employee working overseas, in a hostile country, who is passing themselves off as being the furtherest thing from a CIA employee, stands a good chance of being killed for being CIA, if discovered.

In the good old US of A, being known as a CIA employee does not cause dark strangers in a dark alley to do you in.

Yes, there is a danger that some nut case will harm you because you work for the CIA, or the police, or the fire department, or IRS, or Wal-mart. But in an open society, we have decided to balance that danger with our distaste for "secret police".

So if you work for the government, in any capacity, it is not a crime for someone to expose you as a government employee, no matter what your capacity. With one exception. A special class of "spooks", who are working in foreign countries posing as someone with no affiliation with our government.

It doesn't matter what Valerie Plame did at the CIA. It doesn't matter how sensitive her assignments. It doesn't matter who she contacted overseas. If she was not a covert agent defined by IIPA, a "secret agent" working overseas under deep cover, then there is no crime in the statement "Valerie Plame works for the CIA." Because there is no law prohibiting that.

Live with it. Get professional help and try to go on with your life.

Kevin Murphy

Let's say that at one time, more than five years ago, Ms. Plame really was a super spy who really did deservedly enjoy covert status and who's identity wasn't just classified but access to it was limited. Then her cover is blown by Aldrich Ames. What does the CIA do?

Say thanks for the memories and cut her loose?

Or move her into a job that doesn't require anything more than a routine classification? But does that protect her prior status with the same level she enjoyed in the past? No, if she's identified as a CIA employee now, her past will be compromised as well. Is keeping her on a good decision?

What about other truly covert agents? When they tire of the excitement, do they too slide into more routine jobs with the agency?

Cecil Turner

Okay, Jeff, I think I see what you mean. This line:

These officers serve overseas and in the Washington, DC, headquarters.
Implies some of the same guys who serve overseas also serve in Langley, and might also be covert. Not sure that follows, but it's an interesting point.

What about other truly covert agents? When they tire of the excitement, do they too slide into more routine jobs with the agency?

I would assume so. Like military ops, it appears to be a young man's (or woman's) game. Besides, if you look at the job descriptions for the stateside specialties, they say stuff like (CMO): "To be effective, they must understand operational tradecraft and international issues." Which kinda implies they are former field officers.

topsecretk9

Corn is too cute by half. He writes as if he only knows what he has written, when in reality he knows (or had access to information about) who his source about Plame's employment was, the fine details of Valerie Plame's status, and what Joe Wilson told him.

He acted the same way with his Viveca Novak, friend revaluation after he'd blogged...WHAT? What did I do? (hands on cheeks!)

Funny, the left was smokin' mad at him for that.

topsecretk9

revelation.

cathyf
Or move her into a job that doesn't require anything more than a routine classification? But does that protect her prior status with the same level she enjoyed in the past? No, if she's identified as a CIA employee now, her past will be compromised as well.
That's the whole deal with the 5 years thingy. Once 5 years has gone by, the ex-covert's former life is no longer protected by the IIPA.

So in the 70's we all knew that right after WWII Julia Child learned French cooking as a sidelight to being a CIA agent in Europe. Old news, ya know,

lurker

OT, which appears to be far more important than this non-story PlameGate:

Gary Maxwell,

I just came back from a Texas Republican Party meeting where a presentation was given. I know you live in the heart of Texas so wondering if you had read up on the new NASCO corridor (superhighway). Have you?

These are the details that I've encapsulated so far:

"I heard tonight. Basically everyone is impacted but you guys will see the first consequences. Have you heard of NASCO? Google it. This is going to be the first superhighway - a 12-lane road and railway system running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. It will span four football fields wide through the heart of Texas along I-35 from the Mexican border at Laredo to the Canadian border (this superhighway will also be extended into their own country). Four of these lanes will be dedicated to trucks only. There will be very little service / feeder roads. This superhighway will be paid with toll fees. These toll fees are levied as taxes but paid out to a foreign company (I think Spain) because a foreign company that is building this superhighway all the way from bottom of Mexico along I-35 into Canada is based in Spain. These tolls will be collected by this foreign country for 50 years.

Mexican trucks crossing into the US will be checked only electronically by a new SENTRI system, which is being built this year. The first customs stop will be at the nation's key hub called the Kansas City SmartPort Inc., which is to become sovereign Mexican territory.

There will be a North American Union, similar to EU, leading to a single currency for Mexico, USA, and Canada called "Amero".

The brainchild of North American Union is Robert Pastor. He envisions North American Union Tribunal to have supremacy over the US Supreme Court, in order to prevent US power from irritating and retarding the progress of uniting Canada and Mexico into the new governing body.

This will be the first superhighway, leading into a superhighway along the west coast all the way to Fairbanks plus two leading towards the east coast.

None of these had been reviewed by Congress and approved but earmarked. Texas thought that Texas' I-35 will be build by and for the Texas.

It all fits very well to merge NAUT and EU under the umbrella of WTO."

Conspiracy? No, these are facts. Jerome R. Corsi, author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry uncovered these facts.

Google TTC, NASCO, CFR, Texas Eagle Forum.

Everyone is impacted.

lurker

Details about NASCO and all

clarice

Memory Lane:

I was just checking around the IT for old stories about this case and came up with this report from editor & publisher:
"Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has emerged as a key witness in the CIA leak probe, Kenneth R. Baziet and James Gordon Meek of New York's Daily News report.


They write that he has been questioned several times, but is not expected to be indicted by the federal grand jury investigating who outed CIA officer Valerie Plame to journalists in 2003.


"Armitage's testimony could hurt Vice President Cheney's indicted former chief aide Lewis (Scooter) Libby, or President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove," they write.


"Two sources familiar with the case said Armitage, Rove and Libby all had contacts with the press about Plame. Unlike Rove and Libby, Armitage appears to have tried to dissuade reporters from writing about her.


"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald recently had to sneak Armitage into a Washington courthouse to get past reporters - a sign of his value in the case, according to one source."Armitage's office said he was was not available to comment."

ROFL(and I wish I knew the sources)
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636149/posts

MayBee

Cecil: These officers serve overseas and in the Washington, DC, headquarters.

Implies some of the same guys who serve overseas also serve in Langley, and might also be covert. Not sure that follows, but it's an interesting point.

Why does it imply it is the same guys serving overseas and in DC? It just as easily reads that some of the guys serve overseas, and some of them serve in DC. As a group, they serve overseas and in DC. Not individually.

lurker

Speaking about Joe Wilson's comment about Plame's status as NOC, he lied so much that we don't know if he is telling us the truth about Plame's status.

lurker

" These officers serve overseas and in the Washington, DC, headquarters."

Perhaps they served overseas as covert, then later on in WDC as non-covert? But not at the same time.

Kevin Murphy

I would assume so. Like military ops, it appears to be a young man's (or woman's) game. Besides, if you look at the job descriptions for the stateside specialties, they say stuff like (CMO): "To be effective, they must understand operational tradecraft and international issues." Which kinda implies they are former field officers.

My question is when a NOC comes in from the cold, and their employment by the CIA is less stringently protected, what does that do for their prior cover? Does the CIA make an implicit trade off between showing loyalty to their agents by keeping them on the payroll and security by having that agents cover less secure?

I'm assuming the identity of a NOC is closely held secret while the identity of average employee, not so much. If other NOCs are using the same cover, is it really as secure as it should be? Now maybe this isn't a problem because every NOC gets their own cover. It's just something one hopes the CIA thinks about.

Cecil Turner

Why does it imply it is the same guys serving overseas and in DC?

Again, I'm not sure that it does. But the natural progression would tend toward using former field officers in staff jobs as they age, so you'd expect some commonality. (Or at least it does in the military officer corps.)

Perhaps they served overseas as covert, then later on in WDC as non-covert? But not at the same time.

If so, the statute would appear to cover them for five years.

My question is when a NOC comes in from the cold, and their employment by the CIA is less stringently protected, what does that do for their prior cover?

I'd say the need for domestic cover is obviously less stringent, and just as obviously, the statute is written to protect overseas officers/agents. Not sure if the five year thing is based on reassignment policy or possibly shelf-life for tracking an officer's foreign contacts. In any event, this discussion exceeded my competency level a long time back, and this is rank speculation. I'd really like to check assumptions with someone knowledgeable, but that doesn't appear likely (except perhaps someone like Larry, whose answers would be uselessly untrustworthy). I'm to bed. Cheers.

Jeff

MayBee

You might be right that at any given time, it is different groups of the Collection Management Officers who serve overseas or at Langley. (That's actually how I read it.) Even so, combine that with the fact that they serve 30-40% of their careers overseas, and it's quite likely that at any given moment there are plenty of officers who have relatively recently served overseas working at Langley and who therefore qualify for that part of the definition of covert under IIPA. (The difference with Operations Officers, I take it, is more or them keep a day job even in the States; though I don't really know.) Obviously, the fallback position, already voiced, is that by definition that means the U.S. is not taking affirmative measures to protect their identity.

Jeff

I see Cecil got to it before me. And thanks Cecil for the correction on my slip from Collections to Case.

Syl

Jeff

Obviously, the fallback position, already voiced, is that by definition that means the U.S. is not taking affirmative measures to protect their identity.

No. Remember, before the nineties EVERYONE who was employed by the CIA had protection. And most physically worked at Langley.

I don't agree with those who say that driving to Langley everyday means the CIA isn't actively protecting your identity.

(Not sure if that's what you were referring to.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame