Secrets, Double-Super-Secrets, And A Plea For Help

The judge overseeing Ms. Plame's book problems came down in favor of the CIA:

Judge Backs C.I.A. in Suit on Memoir

By ADAM LIPTAK

Valerie Wilson may be the best known former intelligence operative in recent history, but a federal judge in New York ruled Wednesday that she was not allowed to say how long she worked for the Central Intelligence Agency in the memoir she plans to publish this fall.

Although the fact that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. from 1985 to 2006 has been published in the Congressional Record and elsewhere, the judge, Barbara S. Jones of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said Ms. Wilson was not free to say so.

“The information at issue was properly classified, was never declassified and has not been officially acknowledged by the C.I.A.,” Judge Jones wrote.

C.I.A. employees sign agreements requiring them to submit manuscripts to the agency for permission before they are published. The C.I.A. has publicly acknowledged only that Ms. Wilson worked there from 2002 to January 2006, when she resigned.

But a February 2006 letter from the C.I.A. to Ms. Wilson about her retirement benefits said that she had worked for the agency since Nov. 9, 1985, for a total of “20 years, 7 days,” including “six years, one month and 29 days of overseas service.” The letter was published in the Congressional Record in connection with proposed legislation concerning Ms. Wilson’s benefits, and it remains available on the Library of Congress’s Web site.

Judge Jones acknowledged that the C.I.A. “does not contest that the information is, in fact, in the public domain,” adding that “the public may draw whatever conclusions it might from the fact that the information at issue was sent on C.I.A. letterhead by the chief of retirement and insurance services.”

But she said a classified court filing from Stephen R. Kappes, the deputy director of the C.I.A., which lawyers for Ms. Wilson and her publisher were not allowed to see, contained a reasonable explanation for the agency’s position. Judge Jones did not reveal it, saying only that Mr. Kappes has persuaded her of “the harm to national security which reasonably could be expected if the C.I.A. were to acknowledge the veracity of the information at issue.”

“His explanation is reasonable,” Judge Jones wrote of Mr. Kappes’s secret statement, “and the court sees no reason to disturb his judgment.”

I would love to see that explanation - perhaps Ms. Plame was on double-secret probation for part of her employment.  But let's press on:

Mr. Rothberg said that aspect of Judge Jones’s ruling was particularly frustrating.

“Trying to argue a case in which the government was able to submit a supersecret affidavit which we were not able to review was like playing an opponent who has 53 cards in his deck,” he said.

Ahh - here is where I need some help.  I am looking for a rejoinder along the lines of "Yes, but trying to argue about the significance of Joe Wilson's Niger trip with one of his supporters is like playing an opponent with only 51 cards in their deck."  Only funny.

Or maybe, "Trying to argue about Ms. Plame's covert status with a special counsel who is sitting on her personnel file is like...".  Well, you see my conundrum.

We had previously noted this CIA letter, and continue to believe the information that her pension calculation  includes an official CIA accounting of her service abroad is a key data point eerily but not inexplicably suppressed by Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

Comments

[hit and run]

Dadgummit. I am slooooow. I just posted this on the other thread, after reading the link provided by Sara:

----------------

From the NYT article:

Mr. Rothberg [spokesman for Simon & Schuster, publisher of Val's epic work] said that aspect of Judge Jones’s ruling was particularly frustrating.

“Trying to argue a case in which the government was able to submit a supersecret affidavit which we were not able to review was like playing an opponent who has 53 cards in his deck,” he said.

Notwithstanding more relevant topics regarding the case, he ain't talking about poker. Or blackjack. Or gin rummy. Or go fish.

Is he talking about nertz? Or spit? Is it advantageous to have an extra card in a game where you're trying to get rid of all your cards?

Or is there another game where two opponents are playing from their own deck of cards that I am not remembering or of which I am unaware?

I'm vexed.

[clarice]

Old Maid, maybe?

[Sara]

I'll say what I said at the end of the last thread - it is bizarre.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I wonder how Kappes would explain the CIA allowing Lindsay Moran to publish Blowing My Cover a mere two years after she left the field:

Ms. Moran's vignettes about training are well-written and paint a detailed picture of paramilitary and operational courses. It may well serve our many enemies to read this book. ("Hey, Osama, check out this cool evasion tactic!") I was shocked by the level of detail allowed by the CIA publications review board....

Ms. Moran goes on to divulge more operational tricks of the trade, and each time she did so I winced. In the Directorate of Operations culture of my day (the 1980s and 1990s), it was unconscionable to go into such depth about the business of agent recruitment and surveillance detection.

[Sara]

And bizarre, CIA and Plame in the same sentence makes me super suspicious about supersecret reasons. Kappes seems like one of the good guys. Negotiated the Libyan nuke deal, served in Moscow and Pakistan. Clandestine service, with the agency since 1981. I'd feel better about him if that Pakistan service weren't there. Too many players in the Plame/Wilson affair are tied to Pakistan thru State and CIA. And the only thing that seems important enough to keep "supersecret" at the risk of appearing foolish to the public would be some ongoing op that has to do with nukes and nuclear material. Which brings us back to AQ Khan and Iran/Iraq/N.Korea/Pakistan/Libya. What was our gal Val up to?

[Sara]

Ct. of Appeals rules in Wm. Jefferson's favor and orders Justice to return confidential documents removed from his office. Rules the search unconstitutional.

[clarice]

Kappes was fired by Goss and returned when Goss was dumped. He was fired for refusing to fire a leaker IIRC.

The agency may have been able to argue that something about her service may reveal the identities of those working with us or ongoing ops, but cynical me believes those records show she was not w/in the limits of the IIPA and the referral to DoJ was in error.

[clarice]

Sara , Have you a link on the Jefferson story. I can't find it anywhere.

[Sara]

Clarice you may be right, but why at this late date would they care and why would Hayden go along with letting the referral stand if it is in error? That would be really really cold seeing as a man was sentenced to jail, lost his livelihood and his reputation and a whole lot of money. Doesn't it seem like it has to be more if it is a national security issue? I am only guessing, of course, but it seem like it has to be an on-going op that Plame had something to do with before she retired. I just don't see how refusing to confirm her employment dates protects national security when they are already public. We are obviously missing something important, but what?

[Sara]

Clarice, I just heard it as breaking news on Fox. Check www.foxnews.com, it might be on there.

[Sara]

Via Fox News:

WASHINGTON — The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The court ordered the Justice Department to return any privileged documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid.

[Sara]

I guess it wasn't really the search that was unconstitutional, just the taking of some of the documents that were confidential.

[Rick Ballard]

Since it's speculation day I'd toss in an attempt by Mrs. Munchausen to conflate "serve" with "visit" by mentioning her trips abroad in her fabulous account.

There is also an element of Kappes frantically trying to coverup the fact that the CIA was more than dabbling in domestic politics by allowing Scheur et al to go public. Toss in MOM's efforts and the CIA takes on the appearance of a Dem oppo research consultant.

Which is the main reason (IMO) that they are no longer primus intra pares in the intelligence establishment - and a damn good thing too.

I give Kappes no pats - way, way too little and way, way too late. The CIA has State disease and could use 20 years of budget cuts.

[clarice]

Can't tell from that tidbit.

[clarice]

I agree, Rick. My lasat comment was to Sara.

[clarice]

Sara:"but why at this late date would they care and why would Hayden go along with letting the referral stand if it is in error? That would be really really cold seeing as a man was sentenced to jail, lost his livelihood and his reputation and a whole lot of money"

Just speculating, but (a) Kappes is back because he was protecting the CIA bums in the first place and can find an institutional reason and personal one for playing along;and (b) he can justify this to himself by saying the referral was made in good faith and even if it was wrong it wouldn't do a thing to help Libby now.

If he revealed info proving the referral was a ruse, everyone under him would do what they did to Goss--make his job impossible.

[Cecil Turner]

Why doesn't she just break her book up in serial form, and have her hubby publish in the NY Times? Worked for 'em last time . . .

[Sara]

You live in the DC area Clarice, does it ever cross your mind that when you get on the Beltway, you might be driving next to one of these twisted individuals who infects the CIA? When I worked in newspaper advertising, it used to bother me that when I got on the freeway to drive home at night, some of the same dumb people I had to talk to all day were on the road with me in the evening.

I can easily buy that Kappes is connected to the "cabal," but Hayden? The straight arrow military General?

[clarice]

Good point, Cecil--
Sara, I don't mean to imply everyone who works(ed) there is the same. I know at least two who weren't though they've recently left.
This city is full of some very nice people, some very deluded people, and a significant number of very bad people.

[Sara]

I don't know. I'm punchy right now. I have been awake all night long with a sick six year old and an even sicker six year old's Mother. Some kind of yucky intestinal thing. I'm too old for this kind of duty. Sigh.

[clarice]

Hayden? Excuse me--he let his gc work with Waxman to delude almost everyone re Plame's status and never really corrected that, didn't he?

His gc has still failed to clarify her status months after Hoekstra's inquiry.

I think he's a dreadful substitute for Goss if your aim is to straighten out this cesspool.

[Sara]

Clarice, I agree. I didn't mean to malign them all. I think there is a very small group who for some unknown reason wields an awful lot of power at Langley to the detriment of this country. I don't even think it is really about politics. Some day someone will decide to "follow the money," so to speak. This whole group seems intertwined with intelligence and business, both as part of their job and, my speculation, off the books and into their own pockets. Grossman, Wilson, and various and sundry State and CIA long term employees.

[Sue]

Clarice,

The argument Kappes made persuaded the judge. I would think it would take more than protecting CIA bums for a judge to rule in the CIA's favor.

When you think about it this ruling is really in Valerie's favor, since it makes her seem even more "secret". So secret in fact they have to pretend no one knows she worked there.

[Sara]

I think he's a dreadful substitute for Goss if your aim is to straighten out this cesspool.

I hear you. It is just hard to think he could either have so little integrity or on the other hand be so manipulated. He is no novice to the intelligence world, he is a general used to being in charge. I am disappointed in him. I guess I expected him to be more of a "by the book" kind of guy, not just another weakling.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

How does one retire to New Mexico to live a peaceful life AND try and publish a memoir at the same time?

There is no such thing as the million dollar forward from a publisher without a 1 year book tour, media circus commitment.

[bio mom]

So, Since the "separation of powers" has been upheld in the Jefferson case, will Congress now knock it off trying to get the legislative branch to usurp the powers of the executive branch>

[Sara]

I'm reposting the Joyner piece I posted at the end of the last thread just to have it in the right one and to get his quote over here.

________________________

This Plame thing with the dates seems bizarre to me and James Joyner says it "appears awfully silly," yet the judge says she is satisfied with Kappes reasons and that it is a national security issue.

Joyner:

The judge’s ruling is almost certainly legally correct, although the result seems bizarre. Obviously, Kappes hasn’t shared his reasoning with me. I can’t fathom, however, what it might have been.

Book Blog had this coverage back in January:

The [CIA’s Publications Review Board] refused Plame permission to even mention that she worked for the CIA because she served as a “nonofficial cover” officer (or NOC) posing as a private businesswoman, according to an adviser to Plame, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive issue. “She believes this will effectively gut the book,” said the adviser. Larry Johnson, a former colleague, said the agency’s action seems punitive, given that other ex-CIA undercover officers have published books. But even Plame’s friends acknowledge that few NOCs have done so. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the panel was still having “ongoing” talks with Plame to resolve the dispute. “The sole yardstick,” he said, is that books “contain no classified information.”

That she worked as a NOC is public information, solely because the CIA chose to make it so. Therefore, keeping it classified appears awfully silly.

Were Plame/Wilson seeking to publish juicy details of classified ops, reveal trade secrets, or the like, they should obviously be allowed to stop her. But the dates of her employment? Even aside from the Congressional Record, her retirement announcement received worldwide attention.

[cathyf]

I'm just flummoxed. I keep coming back to the fact that the Executive Order is very explicit about what is not classified:

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.

(That's from Executive Order 13292. In EO 12958 the language of that section is identical, it's just section 1.8 instead of 1.7.)

"In no case" means that information is not classified if it fits into any of those categories. These executive orders are the only manner of creating classification on information, and they are the expression of executive authority, which is the only authority for creating classified information.

If the information is NOT classified, then how can the CIA get a judge to go along with claiming that it is?

The only thing that I can think of is that the agreement that Plame signed is more restrictive than an agreement to refrain from disclosing classified information. If, in fact, the agreement is that she cannot disclose any information which the CIA doesn't want her to disclose, classified or otherwise, then, well, she signed the contract, she should be forced to uphold it. And I might actually agree with the CIA that there is a legitimate national security interest in forcing ex-CIA agents to honor their contracts.

[Sara]

OT - Via Sanchez at FOB Falcon:

After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegation made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"

[Topsecretk9]

Recall that the CIA spokesperson initially said there were problems with the book in the form of "fiction" - she was free to print if she labeled it fiction - that tells me that the CIA was not going along- at all - with her "version" of things.

So a guess might she was configuring her dates of service abroad to fit in the IIPA?

Also, I thought Scary larry print Kappes affidavit?

[hit and run]

the allegation made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

The singular "allegation" caught my eye, as there were many allegations in Beauchamp's writing. But as a commenter over on Matt's blog noted, there is subject-verb conflict because he uses the word "have".

Most likely missing an "s" on what was intended to be allegations....

[Sara]

H&R, check Confederate Yankee too. He wrote to the base in Kuwait and got an email back, but they are also investigating and calling Beauchamp's claims and Urban Myth.

[Sara]

Sorry, here is the CY link:

Breaking: Kuwait-Based Army PAO Calls Beauchamp/New Republic Claim an "Urban Legend or Myth"

[Sara]

Whoa! The Prez just laid it on the line for Congress -- stay in session 'til you give the DNI the tools he needs to protect America.

[hit and run]

Fun with Geraghty:

Fun With Low Approval Ratings

President Bush's Approval Rating on the Iraq war, according to Zogby (yes, I admit, I take his numbers with a grain of salt): 24 percent.

Congress' Approval Rating on the Iraq war, according to Zogby: 3 percent. (No, that's not a typo.)

Michael Vick's Approval Rating, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC: 5 percent.

Congress' handling of Iraq: Forty percent less popular than Michael Vick!

[verner]

Hi All!

Don't know how many of you have had a chance to read Rowan Scarborough's book yet, but he makes it pretty clear that Hayden is a Judas who kissed up to Waxman over Plame just to make points with the Dems. He wants to keep his job in case we have a president Hillary.

Also Clarice, great stuff from RS about our old friend Fulton Armstrong--the CIA's resident Castro lover, who, as Mr. Foley told us in the Bolton hearings, was also involved with Niger....hmmm, interesting. But of course, Armstrong is currently serving "overseas" and was unavailable for an interview.

As for Val, funny isn't it, that they will admit that she was employed AFTER 2002. And when did the Novak column appear? So what does that mean, that she wasn't super secret after 2002?

[Carol Herman]

The CIA does not come out of this smelling like a rose;

And, George Tenet DID publish! However, in his book where he thinks he's at the "center of the storm," he never mentions Plame. Not once.

The CIA just plays a game: THERE. NOT THERE.

Only your psychiatrist "knows."

[PeterUK]

CIA = Clintons In Absence?

[clarice]

Verner, Hi! What's RS and where can I find that piece.pls?

[clarice]

Oh--nevermind--Scarborough--Sorry, I'm a bit slow today.

[verner]

Hey Clarice.

Rowan Scarborough, and his new book Sabotage.

I ordered mine a week ago from Amazon.com. Worth the read, just for the episode about Hoekstra and Toening confronting Hayden after the Waxman hearings. Lots of good stuff.

[Topsecretk9]

Now Larry is saying

--Valerie was undercover from the day we entered on duty in September of 1985. --

I thought it was November?

[Jane]

I read it too Verner, fabulous.

So this Judge was a Clinton Judge right? Is she trying to protect the CIA from being caught with their pants down on Plame? So far nothing else makes sense. (And I'm not even sure that does.)

[boris]

Perhaps it's more along the lines of "CIA had to cover for your fubar clusterfrak so now it's your turn to just shut up and fade away"

[MikeS]

Now Larry is saying--
Valerie was undercover from the day we entered on duty in September of 1985. --

Who cleared Larry to release that info?
Our secret agents, don't seem to be proficient at the 'secret' part.

[clarice]

Could be a typo--for she was under the covers from the day we entered on duty...

[PeterUK]

"Now Larry is saying

--Valerie was undercover from the day we entered on duty in September of 1985. --"

But how would Larry know,they gave Plame the gun and Larry the ballpoint pen.

[davod]

The problem I have with Scarborough is that he divulges what he implies is a classified program and states that he is the first to do so.

The program in question would certainly still be usefull and I think its disclosure would have a negative effect on the fight against the ratbags.

[lurker]

I have a question...

You know that movie that Hollywood was going to make about the Wilsons?

Well, does Hollywood or the Wilsons have to seek permission from CIA? Based on this judge's ruling, how can Hollywood buy those rights?

[willem]

Better yet, how can Plame-Wilson sell them?