Covert officer

[Lanya]

[..............]

Was Valerie a covert officer when her name appeared in Bob Novak's column in July 2003?

Before Valerie's testimony on Friday the CIA had never put anything on the public record regarding her status.  Yesterday the CIA came out of the closet.  CIA Director Michael Hayden approved a statement that contained the following language:

    During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

    Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

    At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

    This was classified information.

Got it?  The Director of the CIA confirmed in public for the first time that Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover, was covert and that this information was classified.  What is it about English that goober Congressman Westmoreland and ditzy Vicky Toensing don't understand?

But hell, you do not have to believe General Hayden.  Believe Valerie.  She testified under oath.  The results of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial still fresh in her mind, she is asked under oath about an objective fact that, if wrong, can be easily disproved.  She minced no words: "I was undercover".

The twit Victoria Toensing continued to insist however, along with other Bush apologists, that Valerie was not covert per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  Well, once again, here are the damn facts.  According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

    (4) The term “covert agent” means:
    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
    (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
    (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
    (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

You do not even have to be a lawyer to figure this out.  You only need a brain.  The first question is whether or not Valerie worked for the CIA.  Newflash--she did!!  Well, that's what Robert Novak was told by two Administration officials.

Point two--Was Valerie's indentity classified information?  Yesterday CIA Director Michael Hayden said yes.  Valerie, while under oath, also said yes.  And we also have statements on the record by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and that of her fellow CIA colleagues--Jim Marcinkowski, Michael Grimaldi, Brent Cavan, and me--who are also on the record stating she was undercover and her identity as a CIA officer was classified.

Point three--Did Valerie meet any of the criteria set out above (i.e. A, B, or C)?  The answer is yes, per subsection A.  Valerie served outside the United States in the five years prior to July 2003.  Valerie, under oath, said so.  CIA Director Hayden approved a statement that said in part:

    Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.  Without discussing the specifics of Ms. W'ilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

Since the CIA will only acknowledge that Valerie worked at the CIA from 2002 on this means the travel General Hayden refers to occurred in 2002 and 2003. 

[.............]

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/undercover_cove.html#more

[BT]

Which all begs the question of why wasn't Armitrage charged?

He was the original leaker.

He was a recipient of the INR Memo. And Johnson himself says that the paragraph in that memo that mentioned Plame was marked secret so Amitrage must have known.

[sirs]

FYI Lanya...you can pull up op-ed after op-ed, after oped, all OPINING how Plame was supposedly covert.  At one time, she may have actually been covert.  That's a plausible possibility

FACT remains at no time during the Fitzgerald investigation was she designated covert, when this all went down.  At no time did Fitzgerald, the fella in charge of the investigation, refer to her as covert.  And most importantly, at the end of Fitzgerald's investigation, NO ONE WAS CHARGED FOR OUTING HER AS A SUPPOSED COVERT AGENT.  Hell no one was charged for outing her, period

No, if you want to play these opinion games, why aren't you aiming your wrath at Armitrage?  According to the timeline established, HE's where everything got started.  Is he simply not close enough to Bush to make it worth your while?  Still holding out hope Rove & Cheney will be indicted?  Investigation still not thorough enough, right?

[Lanya]

Sirs, do you see  Hayden listed as the speaker of those words "she was covert"?  That is no op ed.

Read it again.  Til it sinks in.
Yesterday the CIA came out of the closet.  CIA Director Michael Hayden approved a statement that contained the following language:

    During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

    Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

    At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

    This was classified information.

BT,
Do you not understand the legal term "double jeopardy"?  One shot at proving someone is guilty of violating the Espionage Act, or any other law.  That's it.    Time is on our side. 

[sirs]

Sirs, do you see  Hayden listed as the speaker of those words "she was covert"? 

Lanya, do you see ANYWHERE where Fitzgerald says she was??  You know, the fella in charge of the INVESTIGATION ON WHETHER A COVERT AGENT WAS ILLEGALLY OUTED?  Last time I checked, the investigation was completed.  Care to produce an appropriate reference from that investigation that concludes Plame was covert??

[Amianthus]

CIA Director Michael Hayden approved a statement that contained the following language:

Wonder what else it said.

[sirs]

Today we know what we did not know when it happened -- namely, that Fitzgerald discovered early on that the leaker was not any of the White House officials on whom suspicion was focussed.  It was Richard Armitage in the State Department. Moreover, Joe Wilson's wife had a desk job at the C.I.A. and revealing that fact was not a violation of the criminal law.

In other words, there was no crime to prosecute and there was no mystery to solve as to who had leaked Wilson's wife's name to columnist Robert Novak.

[Lanya]

This is what oversight looks like
by MissLaura
Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:08:47 PM PDT

From the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's hearings on the Plame leak.  Excerpts from transcripts available at The Raw Story.  Pictures in the public domain.

    REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.

    Before I recognize the next witness, I just want to clarify this point. The investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald didn't take place for months and months and months after it was well-known that there had been a leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent. Now, as I understand it, there's an obligation for the White House to conduct an immediate investigation to find out whether they needed to suspend security clearances of somebody who had leaked this information, to maybe take disciplinary action against an individual who might have been involved, and thirdly, to find out who divulged it.

    And the White House had that obligation, because this was a matter of important, highest-order national security. Am I stating things correctly, Mr. Leonard?

    MR. LEONARD: Mr. Chairman, as you point out, whenever there is suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise, there is an affirmative responsibility to do an inquiry. At the very least to determine -- to implement corrective action. So that -- subsequent and additional and similar violations do not continue to occur, and also to be able to ensure that any potential damage to national security is assessed.

    And part of the assessment of corrective action is also the assessment of the need for sanctions.

    REP. WAXMAN: Right after the Novak column appeared, there was an outrage that this was disclosing a covert agent. And not only that, the CIA was so angered by it that they wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding an investigation. And in light of this, which took place immediately after the information of the leak was disclosed, the White House still has not initiated an investigation. Am I correct in that statement, Mr. Knodell?

    MR. KNODELL: That's correct. My office does not.

    REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.

    REP. HODES: What discussions, if any, have you had with anyone about whether or not you should or should not institute an investigation into the security breaches that are the subject of this hearing today?

    MR. KNODELL: I've had no conversations.

    REP. HODES: You haven't talked to anybody?

    MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

    REP. HODES: So when you say you're going to go back to the White House and take it up with senior management, you're senior management, aren't you?

    MR. KNODELL: Yes, sir. I am.

    REP. HODES: So you're going to go back and talk to yourself about whether or not you're going to conduct an investigation? Is that what you want this panel to believe?

    MR. KNODELL: I will -- I report to several people.

    REP. HODES: Who do you report to, sir?

    REP. CUMMINGS: So even if Karl Rove or any other White House official did not know that Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified, the disclosure of such information to an individual not authorized to receive it could have been a violation of the executive order? And that is an executive order of the president of the United States. Is that right?

    MR. LEONARD: That's right.

    REP. CUMMINGS: So, basically the president set up some rules and then he said, I'm going to make sure that if anybody violated these rules, they're going to have major problems, and they're going to have to go. And then the next thing you know, there is apparently a violation, but there has been no action. Is that right?

    MR. KNODELL: Other than the criminal proceedings, no action from my office.

Just a friendly reminder.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/18/20847/0873
***********************
via TIME
But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

[sirs]

I think you're having both a timeline problem & factual problem, Lanya. 

From a timeline perspective, at some time, perhaps Plame was covert.  I don't doubt that. 

From a FACTUAL standpoint, at the time of this supposed "outing" apparently she wasn't.  Fitzgerald, has had a 3+yr multimillion dollar investigation, and at the end of it all, AT NO TIME HAS HE DESIGNATED HER COVERT.  And AT NO TIME HAS SOMEONE BEEN INDICTED FOR "OUTING HER", which would have been illegal HAD SHE BEEN DESIGNATED COVERT

Are you catching on, yet?

[BT]

BT,
Do you not understand the legal term "double jeopardy"?  One shot at proving someone is guilty of violating the Espionage Act, or any other law.  That's it.    Time is on our side. 

Sure i understand. Armitrage wasn't charged with anything, thus no double jeopardy, yet he was the first leaker and once again according to super spy and Bush admirer Larry Johnson, he was aware of her status because of the INR Memo.

What's up with that?

[Lanya]

I don't know.  All I do know, for sure, is that at the time her cover was blown, by her own countrymen, Valerie Wilson was covert.

[sirs]

All I do know, for sure, is that at the time her cover was blown, by her own countrymen, Valerie Wilson was covert.

Apparently the fella in charge of making that determination, disagrees with your opinion.  What's up with that?  I have a feeling this has more to do with the emotional baggage you're carrying around regarding this Administration than any actual search for the truth

[Lanya]

The "Person in charge of making that determination" would be the director of the CIA.

CIA Director Michael Hayden approved a statement that contained the following language:

    During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

    Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

    At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

    This was classified information.

Got it?  The Director of the CIA confirmed in public for the first time that Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover, was covert and that this information was classified.

[sirs]

The "Person in charge of making that determination" would be the director of the CIA.

While the person in charge of determing if Plame was covert, and thus was "illegally outed", in this whole debacle would be Fitzgerald.  Sorry Lanya, facts are facts.  I realize how your hatred for Bush, Cheney, and Rove is so great, you can't see straight, but as it currently stands, 3+ years and millions of dollars later, Fitzgerald discovered early on that the "leaker" was Richard Armitage in the State Department.  Not anyone in the WH or the Bush administration.  And more importantly at the time of this supposed "outing" Plame had a desk job at the C.I.A. and revealing that fact was not a violation of any criminal law.  If she had been "covert", that wouldn't be the case now, would it?

In other words, there was no crime to prosecute and there was no mystery to solve as to who had leaked Wilson's wife's name to columnist Robert Novak.

Got it?

[BT]

And, the last one for today, Mr. Maguire once again:

First, I want a special counsel to indict Waxman for perjury - the relevant Executive Order is 13292, which amended and supplanted 12958 in March 2003, and which was effective immediately (except for section 1.6, related to markings - what are the odds the violation to which he refers is there? Groan. I want a lawyer...).
But before we take Mr. Waxman away in chains, let's talk about his statement. The magic words we are all listening for are "Ms. Plame had covert status under the law as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act." His failure to speak those words speaks volumes - I have no doubt he will gull the NY Times (Mission Accomplished - see below), but folks in the know will see this for the smokescreen it is.

Please - don't tell me that there would have been vast national security implications if he had said "CIA lawyers who have studied her file have assured me that Ms. Plame had covert status under the IIPA". There would have been no national security implications to his saying it, it would have strengthened his presentation to say it, yet he did not say it - what reasonable conclusion might one draw?


I can't even begin to count the number of crowing posts I've seen on the lefty blogs today affirming that since Valerie Plame testified she was covert, and GEN Hayden provided a letter stating she was "under cover", that seals the deal. It. Does. Not. The relevant law covering who is, or is not covert is still the IIPA. If Fitzgerald thought he had a case against anyone but Richard Armitage, he'd have pursued it. The fact he didn't should be enough to quell the lefty screaming from the rooftops, but don't hold your breath.

embedded links