"I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law,...

[Michael Tee]

421, which Ami provided, isn't the section we're looking for either.

421(a) deals with disclosure (by a certain class of individuals) of info that identifies a covert agent.

421(b) deals with disclosure (by another class of individuals) of info that identifies a covert agent.

421(c) deals with disclosure (with a certain defined intent) of info that identifies a covert agent.

421 (d) deals with penalties for infringements under this section.

In short, Section 421 deals with the concept of a "covert agent" without defining it.   So it really doesn't provide any help in answering the question, "Was Plame a "covert agent" or not?"

To recap the problem:  "covert agent" is defined in section 426, as Ami pointed out.  The definition is effected by establishing certain criteria for a covert agent, all of which, with one exception, Plame seems to satisfy.  The one such exception being that the agent's identity be "classified information."  But  section 426 also defines "classified information" - - as information <<designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, [by] statute or Executive order  . . . as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.>>

So what we really need to know at this point is:  is there a statute or Executive Order that designates the employment of Plame (probably by job title or function) as information "designated or clearly marked" (by the atatute or Executive Order) as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for national security reasons?

The existence of such a statute or Executive Order means that Plame WAS a covert agent (as long as she satisfied the other criteria of section 426) and the non-existence of such a statute or Executive Order will mean that she wasn't.

[sirs]

In short, Section 421 deals with the concept of a "covert agent" without defining it.   So it really doesn't provide any help in answering the question, "Was Plame a "covert agent" or not?"

Fitzgerald's investigation however DOES.  He was put in charge to determine who, if anyone leaked the identity of a covert agent.  He made no such designation of Plame's status, and charged no one for "outing a covert agent", when it was determined to be Armitage who leaked Plame's name.  If she WERE covert, Armitage would be in front of a judge and jury.  He isn't..........why would that be?..........apparently she was not covert, reinforced by the FACT that Fitzgerald's investigation never made that conclusion either.  The only person charged with anything was Libby, for mistaking something he said under oath, with something he wrote before.  And nothing related to any "outing"

This continued spinning your wheels simply deepens the whole your debate tire is stuck in

[Michael Tee]

<<This continued spinning your wheels simply deepens the whole your debate tire is stuck in>>

Well, it doesn't hurt to examine the issue, especially when a very simple and basic question remains unanswered.  Is there or is there not a statute or Executive Order in existence that designated the information about Plame's employment as requiring a specific degree of protection?

Seems to me that if Fitzgerald did in fact conduct an "exhaustive investigation" of the subject, and if Plame's being a covert agent were a factor of such crucial importance to the outcome, that the presence or absence of a statute or an Executive Order fulfilling one of the necessary criteria for being a covert agent would have been (a) a very simple matter to determine and (b) noted clearly in the report itself.  Yet what I gather from your last post is that there is no specific finding on that very simple matter in Fitzgerald's report.  We have only your speculation - - that Fitzgerald "must" have concluded there was no such statute or Executive Order because . . .  Quite frankly, that is ridiculous.  The question was basic, simple, and easily capable of being answered.  The number of statutes and Executive Orders is finite and they are all publicly available and searchable.  An issue of such importance to the outcome of the inquiry and so easily answered would NEVER be left to speculation, it would be dealt with directly and answered directly in any honest report.

At this point, I have to say that I am not satisfied that Plame was not a covert agent when she was "outed" and I have been shown nothing that would convince me otherwise.  Speculation on what Fitzgerald "must" have concluded is utterly unacceptable, given the importance of that particular question to the outcome of the inquiry and the easy availability of all the material needed to answer it.

[BT]

A special prosecutor was appointed and a through investigation was conducted. This is nothing more than political show boating.

[sirs]

<<This continued spinning your wheels simply deepens the whole your debate tire is stuck in>>

Well, it doesn't hurt to examine the issue, especially when a very simple and basic question remains unanswered.

Actually it has.....the statutes refer to a covert agent.  Plame was NEVER designated covert by the lead Investigator headed to make such a determination.  But by all means, examine it all you want.  Doesn't change the fact that regardless what Plame says, she wasn't


 

[Amianthus]

Well, it doesn't hurt to examine the issue, especially when a very simple and basic question remains unanswered.  Is there or is there not a statute or Executive Order in existence that designated the information about Plame's employment as requiring a specific degree of protection?

Not at the time of the leak, nor for years before.

[Michael Tee]

<<A special prosecutor was appointed and a through investigation was conducted. This is nothing more than political show boating.>>

Well, political show-boating it might well be, but that doesn't begin to explain how it is that the "special" investigator's report of his "thorough investigation" fails to disprove in the simplest possible way that Plame was a covert agent, though the means of doing so were readily at hand. 

A simple statement in the report that there is and was no statute or Executive Order designating information about Plame's employment as requiring special protection would have put the ball squarely in the court of those alleging criminal misconduct, but such a statement is conspicuously lacking.   Which leaves the special investigator's report, as it's been presented in this thread, without any final resolution of the issue. 

Sure looks, sounds and smells like whitewash to me.

[BT]

Which leaves the special investigator's report, as it's been presented in this thread, without any final resolution of the issue.

The final resolution was that no one was charged even though it was known by the prosecutor prior to the seeking of indictments who the leaker was.

Waxman is just preening for the cameras.

[sirs]

While Tee is apparently preening for the Saloon visitors

[Xavier_Onassis]

Regardless of what the actual status was of Valerie Plame, she was at one time a covert agent, and having been outed, she was no longer capable of being one again. In fact, she retired.

Also regardless of this, Dick Cheney outing her, by whatever means it was done, was an act of total and malicious chickenshittery.

Thereby proving that Dick Cheney is a malicious chickenshit.

[sirs]

Regardless of what the actual status was of Valerie Plame, she was at one time a covert agent, and having been outed, she was no longer capable of being one again. In fact, she retired.

Yea............and?

Also regardless of this, Dick Cheney outing her, by whatever means it was done,

The means here being apparently Cheney taking over Armitage's body & mouth, and running it without Armitage aware of the devious act.   I wonder what device or curse he could have used.   hmmmmm

[Michael Tee]

BT sez:  <<The final resolution was that no one was charged even though it was known by the prosecutor prior to the seeking of indictments who the leaker was.>>

I was quite clear in my reference to a final resolution - - I meant that there had apparently been no final resolution of the issue of whether or not Plame was a covert agent when outed, not a final resolution on the laying of charges.  If the "special prosecutor" and his "exhaustive investigation" never commented one way or the other whether information relating to Plame's employement required a special level of protection under a statute or Executive Order, then that issue was never resolved.

Ami says something that I find very interesting:  <<Not at the time of the leak [was there a statute or Executive Order that info related to Plame's employment required a special level of protection] nor for years before.>>  The inference is clearly that such a statute or Executive Order did exist.  "Years before" indicates some time between 1787 and one year prior to Plame's outing. 

So, where is the statute or Executive Order?  Do its words contain some self-limiting expiration date or otherwise serve to exempt Plame from its application at some point in time prior to her outing?  If so, Plame would not have been a covert agent and her outing was not a criminal act.  If not, then Plame (unless one of the other criteria had ceased to apply) was in fact a covert agent when outed, and those who outed her were in fact criminals defined as such in the legislation.

I can't help but find it exceedingly strange that the report of this "exhaustive investigation' was so inexhaustive that it did not even bother to reprint or even reference the statute or executive order that once rendered Plame a "covert agent" by specifying a level of protection required by her employment information.  If it was so obvious from the statute or Executive Order that it would cease to apply at some particular point in time, all the more reason to include it in the report.  But it wasn't there.  Not even a trace of it.

Sorry, but this one has WHITEWASH written all over it.

[Plane]

"Years before" indicates some time between 1787 and one year prior to Plame's outing. 

Since there was no CIA, or anything like it , before Canada gave it to us during WWII, the order you are looking for would have to be within the last half century give or take a decade.

[Amianthus]

Ami says something that I find very interesting:  <<Not at the time of the leak [was there a statute or Executive Order that info related to Plame's employment required a special level of protection] nor for years before.>>  The inference is clearly that such a statute or Executive Order did exist.  "Years before" indicates some time between 1787 and one year prior to Plame's outing. 

It's fairly common knowledge among those who followed the news at the time that she was designated "covert" from sometime in the 80s until around 1997. After that, she working at headquarters, where anyone could see her going into and out of Langley. The statute covers release of her status for 5 years after she leaves covert designation and only for someone who knows that she was covert. The last bit is the important part, if the leaker did not know that she was covert, leaking the information prior to the end of the five years is not illegal, nor is it illegal for anyone to leak the information after the five year period.

[Plane]

After that, she working at headquarters, where anyone could see her going into and out of Langley.

That is an interesting point.

I wonder how hard it would be for an agent of another government to place a person or camera near the parking lot of the CIA building?