How Important Is It To Protect CIA Agent Identity?

[Wakie]

You know I'm absolutely amazed at how little conservatives seem to care about the fact that someone in this administration (probably some combination of Cheney, Libby, and/or Rove) revealed the identity a CIA NOC (Non-Official Cover Agent ... one operating without diplomatic protection).

Have you guys considered that by revealing her identity they

A) compromised the identity of any CIA sources she recruited;
B) compromised the identity of any CIA NOC's who also used the cover of working for Brewster Jennings & Associates;
C) compromised the identity of any CIA sources recruited by other CIA NOC's who ever used the Brewster Jennings cover;
D) compromised the ability of the CIA to recruit future NOC's with a promise of secrecy and protection (because frankly if you disagree with a future White House you could be 'outed').

But hey ... it served the political motives of this White House so it is ok, right?

[MODU]

  Most front companies employ a skeleton staff for this very reason.  Covers are blown constantly.  People in front companies that are indirectly affected by a blown agents cover are moved to another location within the CIA with little or no negative impact.

[Wakie]

  Most front companies employ a skeleton staff for this very reason.  Covers are blown constantly.  People in front companies that are indirectly affected by a blown agents cover are moved to another location within the CIA with little or no negative impact.

Ah well, heck it ain't no big deal then.  Why even bother worrying about covers then?

Once an agent's cover is blown they are basically useless in the field.  Any nation that is semi-intelligent is keeping tabs on who is a CIA agent and which individuals within their nation those agents seem to have a relationship with.

[MODU]

I understand that, but so does the CIA.  They have plans for their personnel if in case their covers are blown.  The people only become "useless" as far as being under cover.  It doesn't mean their knowledge is useless. 

And we should care about people's covers.  However, like in Plames case, she stopped being undercover once she had a desk in Langley, which she had at the time of the article being ran.

[Wakie]

I disagree that she stopped being undercover once she had a desk in Langley.  You can't just walk into Langley and look around so why would foreign nations know she has a desk there?

[TomC]

I think if you are the VP, or his chief of staff, you err on the side of protecting the identity.

[MODU]

I disagree that she stopped being undercover once she had a desk in Langley.  You can't just walk into Langley and look around so why would foreign nations know she has a desk there?

*sigh*  Ok, if you want to believe that foreign nations do not know who comes in and out of Langley, that's fine with me.

[ATFFL]

I disagree that she stopped being undercover once she had a desk in Langley.  You can't just walk into Langley and look around so why would foreign nations know she has a desk there?

*sigh*  Ok, if you want to believe that foreign nations do not know who comes in and out of Langley, that's fine with me.

I am sure no foreign nation would ever come up with the radical idea of observing the door.

[AuH2O]

Apparently not very for Plame. Her neighbors all knew she was CIA.

[Wakie]

I disagree that she stopped being undercover once she had a desk in Langley.  You can't just walk into Langley and look around so why would foreign nations know she has a desk there?

*sigh*  Ok, if you want to believe that foreign nations do not know who comes in and out of Langley, that's fine with me.

I am sure no foreign nation would ever come up with the radical idea of observing the door.

Here's a few wild ideas ....

1.  Have a "back door" for folks whose ID's are not readily available to the public.

2. While I agree that the Chinese, Koreans, and Iranians would probably stick someone to watch the front door, write down license plate #'s, and cross-ref them against OUR dmv records ... I doubt the Nigerians, Sudanese, and Yemeni are doing it.

3. Shouldn't the White House be erring on the side of caution when it comes to little things like covert CIA operatives?  I guess if there are political points to score little things like National Security aren't so important.

[Wakie]

Apparently not very for Plame. Her neighbors all knew she was CIA.

Once more ... how do we know that?  I've heard it repeated again and again here but no one has said how they know that.  This may be a stupid question, but can someone provide a source for this "common knowledge"?

This would seem to indicate otherwise.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507260005

[AuH2O]

It's not "common knowledge." It was leaked by someone, probably a lawyer involved in the case. Just like a lot of other things being bandied about were leaks.

At this point, Plame is irrelevant anyway. Fitzgerald is almost certainly looking exclusively at perjury and like charges... though it is unclear why anyone would perjure themself in this case, since if Cheney told Libby about Plame that would not be a problem (he's the VP, he can talk about whatever he wants so long as it doesn't get out).

The end result will be a couple of indictments, with Rove not being one of them.

[Wakie]

I disagree with your statement that Plame is irrelevant.

You guys have repeatedly said that her neighbors knew she was a CIA agent but no one can produce something to back that claim up.  In fact as I do more and more digging online it is looking like that just isn't true.

[J. J.]

I disagree with your statement that Plame is irrelevant.

You guys have repeatedly said that her neighbors knew she was a CIA agent but no one can produce something to back that claim up.  In fact as I do more and more digging online it is looking like that just isn't true.

Wakie, I've been very careful to say that I don't know what her status is.

I've also raised that possibility that Plame could potentially be at Langley and still be under cover (though that makes "knowingly" blowing her cover a bit harder to prove).  I have also raised the possibility that she was within the "5- year" time limit.  I don't have the answers.

If, however, she gave her children's school a work number that, when dialed, was answered as, "Hello, Central Intelligence Agency," if she gave out business cards that said "Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency,"  if she listed her job as being with the CIA with her Alumni Association, or if, when asked, she told her neighbors that she worked at the CIA, she wasn't undercover.  Now, we don't know if she was or wasn't undercover, but Fitzgerald is looking at this aspect, correctly, IMO.

Yes, I feel that it is exceptionally important to protect a covert operative's identity, but Plame may not have been, and whomever leaked it might have not known that she was undercover.

[The Duke]

As far as I know Plame was not a covert operative.  If you have some evidence that she was, please present it.  If you cannot substantiate the idea that she was covert, you should stop saying and implying that she was covert.

As for the discolsing of Plame inadvertently disclosing the names of people she recruited, I can't agree.  From every account that I have heard of what Rove and Libby leaked, they did not leak her name.  They simply said that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.  I haven't heard any one give an account fo events that has them disclosing her name, her job title, or whether she worked at Langley or not.  If there is another account of what happenned, I'd be happy to hear it and judge its merits.  If you have such an account, please present it.  If you don't have such information, please stop exaggerating what was disclosed.

Finally, a question:  Which is the greater threat to the national security and American democracy?
1. A bureaucracy that tries to undermine the foreign policy set out by the elected leadership in the White House and Congress.
2. A successful effort to discredit the lies told by that renegade bureaucracy.

[Wakie]

Plame was clearly, at least at some point, a covert operative.  How do we know?  Because she used Brewster Jennings & Associates as an employment cover.  Denying this or failing to recognize it is stubborn blindness at best.

Saying that it isn't disclosing her identity because her name wasn't used, just "Joe Wilson's wife" is absolutely ridiculous.  If I say Dan Quayle's wife works for Denny's it doesn't take a genius to know I'm talking about Marilyn Quayle (wife of the former VP).

You can spin this any which way you want, but we're talking about treason here.  We're talking about compromising the security of the United States for political gain.  For as often as you guys acuse Clinton of this you would think you would take offense to someone from your own team doing it.

[The Duke]

Plame was clearly, at least at some point, a covert operative.  How do we know?  Because she used Brewster Jennings & Associates as an employment cover.  Denying this or failing to recognize it is stubborn blindness at best.

Saying that it isn't disclosing her identity because her name wasn't used, just "Joe Wilson's wife" is absolutely ridiculous.  If I say Dan Quayle's wife works for Denny's it doesn't take a genius to know I'm talking about Marilyn Quayle (wife of the former VP).

You can spin this any which way you want, but we're talking about treason here.  We're talking about compromising the security of the United States for political gain.  For as often as you guys acuse Clinton of this you would think you would take offense to someone from your own team doing it.

She may have been a covert operative at one point, but she was not a covert operative at the time her identity was disclosed, and therefore no crime was committed, now was it?

We would only know that Marilyn Quayle works at Dennys if we already knew who Dan Qauyle's wife was.  And if we already knew who Joe Wilson's wife was and all we needed to be told was where she worked, then the Bush Administration didn't leak anything that Joe and valerie's neighbors didn't already know.

Yes, we are indeed talking about treason.  An act of treason where Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame abused their positions in the US government to conduct their own private foreign policy, which actually is illegal.

[J. J.]

Plame was clearly, at least at some point, a covert operative.  How do we know?  Because she used Brewster Jennings & Associates as an employment cover.  Denying this or failing to recognize it is stubborn blindness at best.

"At some point," does not cut it.  It has to be within that 5 year period.  As I've pointed out, I had an attorney who was a covert operative with the CIA; he's no longer under cover and he's been out long enough that it can be discussed.  His law partner could say, "He's an ex-CIA covert operative," because he's no longer undercover or covered by the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tend to agree, if Plame was covert and if the leakers knew she was covert.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, we're not talking about treason, but a potential violation of Federal law. 

As for comparisons, one charge floating around is possibly disclosing classified information, for which Sandy Berger plead guilty.  Both are as serious, though we don't if it happened with Plame.  I can remember a few of the leftist here lamenting the guilty plea (and fine).

Keep in mind what we don't know:

1.  If Plame was undercover since 1997.  (And I don't have an answer either.)

2.  If anything leaked was classified.

[Wakie]

She may have been a covert operative at one point, but she was not a covert operative at the time her identity was disclosed, and therefore no crime was committed, now was it?

Let's see, that is one of the big topics of discussion isn't it?  It sounds like you have already made your conclusion.  I'd love to see what you base your conclusion on.  

Clearly she was, at one point, a covert CIA operative.  Whether or not she was still a CIA operative is unknown but it turns out (contrary to what some of you guys on here are claiming) her neighbors DID NOT know she worked for the CIA.  As recently as 2001 she was known to be listing Brewster Jennings as her employer (indicating that at that time she was still an active CIA operative).  There is, I believe, a 5 year window of protection wherein a covert CIA agent's identity CANNOT be revealed.  2001 + 5 years would be 2006.  Since it isn't 2006 yet clearly a crime WAS committed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are dancing around this with some pretty flimsy logic.  Their neighbors DID NOT know that she worked for the CIA.

When we talk about former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife you know I mean Valerie Plame (he only has one).  When we talk about former VP Dan Quayle's wife you know I mean Marilyn Quayle (he only has one).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice spin there, but completely ridiculous.  Ignore a blatant effort to compromise our intelligence community for political gain.  Why would anyone risk their lives to work for US intelligence?  This administration has shown that if you do you are 1 Presidential election from having your identity revealed.

[J. J.]

Let's see, that is one of the big topics of discussion isn't it?  It sounds like you have already made your conclusion.  I'd love to see what you base your conclusion on. 

Clearly she was, at one point, a covert CIA operative.  Whether or not she was still a CIA operative is unknown but it turns out (contrary to what some of you guys on here are claiming) her neighbors DID NOT know she worked for the CIA.  As recently as 2001 she was known to be listing Brewster Jennings as her employer (indicating that at that time she was still an active CIA operative).  There is, I believe, a 5 year window of protection wherein a covert CIA agent's identity CANNOT be revealed.  2001 + 5 years would be 2006.  Since it isn't 2006 yet clearly a crime WAS committed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426   ----000-.html

Notice these two clauses:

"(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;"


Simply "listing Brewster Jennings as her employer" is not sufficient.  That she is in the CIA must be classified and she has to have been serving outside the US.  The statute also exempts one person, the covert agent, from this, so if Plame talked to someone that isn't holding a security clearance and they tell the Press, guess what, it's not a violation.


Interestingly, she does not post anything on her Alumni Association profile about her employment; we graduated the same year.  Ah, I may have met her and I'd bet we have mutual friends, but I don't remember her. 

[J. J.]

Interestingly, Brewster Jennings is not believed to be the cover job for what Plame was doing.  See:  http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

[Citizen James]

Of course, national security is far less important than marital fidelity.  A lie about compromising national security interests in no  big thing, unlike adultery which is one of the ten commandments.

Glad to see we have our priorities straght.

</sarcasm>

[J. J.]

Of course, national security is far less important than marital fidelity.  A lie about compromising national security interests in no  big thing, unlike adultery which is one of the ten commandments.

Glad to see we have our priorities straght.

</sarcasm>

Let's be clear here.  There may have been no violation of any law dealing with national security. 

I take it that you feel perjury is okay, James?  I don't.

[The Duke]

I wonder if Wakie will be issuing an apology for stating that Libby had blown the cover of an undercover agent?  Since Libby has effectively been cleared of that and Fitzgerald had not even sought to bring charges, I think it is in order to ask Wakie to retract these accusations.

[Wakie]

I wonder if Wakie will be issuing an apology for stating that Libby had blown the cover of an undercover agent?  Since Libby has effectively been cleared of that and Fitzgerald had not even sought to bring charges, I think it is in order to ask Wakie to retract these accusations.

I wonder if John Ford paid attention to Fitzgerald's statement wherein he basically stated that the reason he couldn't determine the extent to which Libby was involved was because he perjured himself.

Also, is anyone on here really arrogant enough to believe that Scooter Libby or any other member of the White House staff reads this msg board?