Selections from a comment thread on TPMCafe.com

Note: I piped in when folks on this predominately liberal web site seemed to be casting about for a definition. Note how some of the posters address arguments and others become unbridled that not everybody thinks like them... I only put in the comments which I addressed and ones which answer my questions. Enjoy! Here is the link to the story and all comments: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/28/213621/867 Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#12) by JohnJMadison on Jul 29, 2005 -- 01:50:39 AM EST It's curious that Harlow said Plame was "undercover." Surely he knows that prosecutions under the IIPA require that an operative be "covert," according to specific, objective criteria that don't depend on the CIA's opinion. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#14) by Bruce Webb on Jul 29, 2005 -- 07:35:57 AM EST I truly am confused by your post. By definition and by etymology "covert" means "covered", indeed they are the same word in origin. It seems you are drawing a difference without a distinction. There is an odd implication that attorneys at Justice know what "covert" means while CIA Spokesmen (who certainly have immediate access to CIA attorneys) are limited to "opinions". Rock the Vote: Don't get Played on Social Security [ http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#15) by davcbr on Jul 29, 2005 -- 08:35:13 AM EST JJMadisonGo back and read it again; maybe even read the whole thing. What you are point out is a quote from the Wash. Post, not a direct quote from Harlow. And, can you come up with anybody who can offer a better definition of what "covert" means than the CIA? Name him or her (or are they too covert to even talk about?) By the way, you guys continually cite that specific law. Go do some real reading about this and I think you'll find that any number of offenses can and will apply in this matter. I would put in some refs, but I don't think you're really interested. dc At this point I pasted in the entire statute with no comment... Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#26) by walt on Jul 29, 2005 -- 11:55:47 AM EST (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 Now, I know it's tough for a conservative to understand this complex law, so I have made bold type of the relevant facts about Plame/Wilson. She is/was an officer whose status is/was classified and who has/had served overseas. Finally, "served outside the United States" does not mean "lived" or "resided" or "was assigned to the embassy" or . . . ? it just means served. For example, she could fly commercial air to Rome, attend an international show for weapons sales, spend a couple of days at the conference, and return home. Thus, she served. It really ain't that complicated--unless a person is working real hard at being a jackass. Below is my first reply--it is never really answered... Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#31) by dbp on Jul 29, 2005 -- 01:03:41 PM EST On what legal basis do you support your claim: "does not mean "lived" or "resided" or "was assigned to the embassy" or . . . ? it just means served. For example, she could fly commercial air to Rome, attend an international show for weapons sales, spend a couple of days at the conference, and return home." Please quote some case law which justify this odd interpretation of the expression "served outside the United States ". Also, what conferences or international shows did Ms. Plame attend in the 5 years before she was outted? Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#38) by sheerahkahn on Jul 29, 2005 -- 03:41:51 PM EST dpb,There are holes in which one will stumble into without realzing the magnitude or depth of said orifice.For your reading pleasure: http://www.careers.state.gov/general/work/index.htmlIt's really not about law, but rather the employers interpretation of one's job duties and the affixed title and expectation of said duties that define the term "service overseas."This is one such example, a little research should uncover more. Editorial note: I never seemed to get through to some of the posters that when a person is accused of breaking the law, it is really about the law and nothing else. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#39) by dbp on Jul 29, 2005 -- 04:25:49 PM EST Hi sheerahkahn,The link you provided did not include any information re. the def of "residing outside of the United States".Perhaps this article from the Washington Post will be of value...The Plame Game: Was This a Crime? Note: I meant to say 'served' above, but nobody seemed to notice my gaffe By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21 relevant quote: "At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. " You can find the whole article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11btw. the authors of the Washington Post article were involved in the negotiation and drafting of the law, so I guess that would make them experts on the issue. Editorial note: It should be obvious that professional people would not in most cases be willing to risk ridicule from their peers. It is reasonable to conclude that their conclusions (which may not in the end prevail) are not unreasonable. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#40) by walt on Jul 29, 2005 -- 05:12:21 PM EST This appears to be one of those stupid "he said," "she said" time-wasting discussions with a talking point barf-mobile cruising the blogs. Relevant quotes: Toensing & Sanford claim that Plame/Wilson was not covert. She was. Pincus & Vendehei nailed that one with the quotes from Harlow, former CIA spokesperson. And I'm not going to hand you references or links: any sentient being who follows this Plame Name Blame Game knows the relevent data. O, in case you haven't paid any attention, L. Johnson, the former CIA operative who started this thread, says that Plame/Wilson was covert, undercover, clandestine. So much for the Toensing & Sanford veracity. Toensing & Sanford question whether a crime took place. "It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed." A crime took place. Judge Hogan stated that J. Miller was in the bad situation of taking part in a crime when he approved the contempt citation. Hogan's decree is the only one that counts. Then the D.C. circuit agreed. Then the Appeals Court agreed. Yup, there's a crime. So now, your source article by Toensing & Sanford has two factual errors, or mistakes, or lies??? Yeah, even when their article was published, it was commonplace that a crime had been committed by outing a covert CIA agent. Finally, the comments by Toensing & Sanford about jetting off to exotic places doesn't apply. Horse crap. I'm not supposed to feed trolls. Anyway, it's not worth any time to rebut your reference point by dreary point. Service isn't based on case law, it's a function of employer assignments. And that was the point by sheerah's reference to employment in Foreign Service positions with the Federal government. If any government entity sends an employee to an overseas location, on duty, in his/her employment status, that means they "served." Whether it's a courier flying a bag in to an embassy, a hot-stick jet jockey flying over a war zone, a military office in mufti attending a seminar, a covert agent working undercover at an international weapons bazaar, etc. O well, I wonder what "is" is. Note: Walt, above gets bent out of shape because someone (me) is not on the same page as the rest of the group-thinking posters...He repeats the same assertion about what serving means lots of times, but never does find the time to back up the assertion with any logic or evidence. He also gets befuddled about the crime which landed Judy Miller in Prison--she is there because she refused to testify before the grand jury... Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#41) by dbp on Jul 29, 2005 -- 06:02:26 PM EST Hi Walt, The beauty of the law is that it is written down for all to see. The law in this case is quite clear (4) The term ''covert agent'' means -(A) a present or retired officer or employee of anintelligence agency or a present or retired member of the ArmedForces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or memberis 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 relationshipto the United States is classified information, and -(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as anagent 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 orforeign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation; or (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whosepast or present intelligence relationship to the United Statesis 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. Please, I beg of you: Show me where there is any ref. to "Service isn't based on case law, it's a function of employer assignments." As you have claimed. The law says "served outside the United States" not "set foot outside the United States" for a reason. All the wishful thinking in the world will not change that. Maybe better would be "Has at any time in the past 5 years been outside of the United States in an undercover capacity" but of course the law doesn't say that. Btw. Judy Miller is in jail for the crime of refusing to testify. And A crime does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for an Grand Jury investigation to order individuals to appear before it. The standard is, I think, probable cause. All of column A; none of column B (3.00 / 0) (#45) by walt on Jul 30, 2005 -- 12:02:29 AM EST Your references to the LAW are humorous. The B section is for persons who are not U.S. citizens, and they must "reside and act" outside the U.S. Those qualified under the A section need only SERVE. Now if this is a difficult distinction for you to follow, why not let it go because you're just not able to tell the difference between residency & service. Your point about "set foot in" is well taken--that's all of the requirement for "service." Boots on the ground will do, too; flew over works; ship sailed out of international waters & into designated zone will also get the entry in your SERVICE record. As per the law: I'm not an attorney. I do know how to discover what they know. If I tell you Judge Hogan decreed something, then it happened. But for your perusal-- His language today [Jul 6, '05], reported in the Washington Post, is nothing short of startling: [Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F.] Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets but to try to discredit an administration critic. "This is not a case of a whistle-blower" revealing secret information to Miller about "dangers at a nuclear power plant," Hogan said. "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct." And just for clarity, 7 reviewing judges agree with Hogan. Preceding per Mark A.R. Kleiman (good blog). I'll stop now, because I don't want to spend my time finding references for "service" as used by the U.S. government or in case law (like when was it ever part of a lawsuit?), and, of course, I couldn't possibly find the CIA definition. My earlier comments are sufficient: if you get off the plane in Baghad, you served in Iraq & get the medal & the payroll upgrade & the entry in your SERVICE record. When Plame/Wilson is wheels up with an NOC passport headed out of the USA, she's covert. When Plame/Wilson goes through paskontrol in a foreign country using her cover ID, she is "serving." When the secret agent gets back in the USA, he or she is still serving until de-briefed & released from the assignment. That's enough. And, as others have shown, the IIPA isn't necessary to support the arguments that Plame/Wilson was covert and that divulging her identity is very likely a crime. Other laws probably also apply and the blogosphere is full of posts about them. It's just that I have a personal distaste for people who attack application of the identities protection act as if they know for a fact that Plame/Wilson doesn't fit the definition. Based on the common knowledge of newspapers & weblogs, her situation seems to fit the definition pretty closely. And the CIA agrees with me (oops, I agree with the CIA) because one of their filings references the ID protection act (the Judge Hogan rulings, again, etc.). Re: All of column A; none of column B (3.00 / 0) (#46) by walt on Jul 30, 2005 -- 12:07:50 AM EST Sorry, lost a paragraph. The C section is for persons who are not U.S. citizens. The B section is for persons who are not officers or agents. The distinction still applies. Persons in category A need SERVE. Persons in cagegory B need reside & act. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#44) by slb on Jul 29, 2005 -- 08:39:21 PM EST btw. the authors of the Washington Post article were involved in the negotiation and drafting of the law, so I guess that would make them experts on the issue. The opinions of Toensing and Sanford as people who were involved in crafting one of the laws in question are interesting, but not dispositive. And it is also perhaps of note that Toensing is apparently a close friend of Robert Novak--of course she's going to try to keep him from looking like a complete turd. There is an interesting analysis of the IIPA in regard to Rove here. It doesn't address the question of Plame's actual status, but I find it hard to believe that the CIA would have pressed so hard for an investigation, and especially hard to believe that the Ashcroft Justice Department would have (however reluctantly) acceded to one, had there been a serious question as to whether or not Plame was actually a covert agent. Even if turns out nobody actually violated the IIPA, that doesn't mean there might not have been other transgressions of law along the way. But for me, this is not so much a question of whether or not a law was violated as it is a question of standards of decency. Whether or not the people trying to "get" Wilson by blowing his wife's cover violated a law, they went way beyond the bounds of what should be decent behavior, even in Washington. And this in a White House that pledged on Day 1 to "restore honor and integrity" to the place. Some honor. Some integrity. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#47) by dbp on Jul 30, 2005 -- 01:20:34 AM EST Hi slb, I like your comments and tone--it is a proper and good thing when folks can be civil. Just a couple of additional remarks: The most probable reason the Justice Dept. allowed an investigation into this affair is that they figured it would show that they have nothing to hide and want to get to the bottom of it. The press demands an investigation and so it is done. The alternative is to cement the impression of guilt. The same could be said about the fact that Rove and Libby both waived confidentiality. If they have something to hide, they made it pretty easy for whatever reporter they spoke to to spill the beans. They are smart and it is smart to not act guilty, but innocent people act innocent too. As for Judy Miller, she may just be standing on principle, but I find it very hard to believe that she went to jail to protect Karl Rove!Here is my personal theory:Andrea Mitchel has said Plame's CIA employment was a fairly well known fact in Washington. So it is safe to surmise that Rove knew about it the same as other insiders. If he told a reporter about Plame it was to convey that Wilson got the Niger gig because of his wife's recomendation, not to out the woman. As far as Rove knew, plame was just a CIA analyst working out of CIA HQ. If Rove knew about Plames 'covert' status, then he would have done something clever in response to questions about how Wilson got picked for the Niger trip: He would have said, "I don't know how he got picked, perhaps he knows somebody in the WMD division at CIA..." Any reporter worth their salt could have figured out that the person Wilson knew at WMD was his wife!Just a theory--could be wrong-time will tell I suppose. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#48) by slb on Jul 31, 2005 -- 01:02:47 AM EST The most probable reason the Justice Dept. allowed an investigation into this affair is that they figured it would show that they have nothing to hide and want to get to the bottom of it. With this White House, which seems intent on raising the power of the Executive Branch of government above that of the other two? No, sorry, I don't buy it. And if what you claim was their reasoning, then why did they hold out for so long before responding to the CIA's request? The CIA had originally requested an investigation within days of the publication of Novak's column, but it was several months (and at least one additional CIA request) later before the Justice Department agreed to proceed. The same could be said about the fact that Rove and Libby both waived confidentiality. Until very recently, Rove had only executed the waiver that was required of all White House employees, which both Time and the New York Times (quite properly, I think) viewed as invalid because they considered them coerced. Rove could have picked up the phone any time and called Matthew Cooper to explicitly release him--but he didn't. Frankly, I think he was trying to have it both ways: to give the impression that he had released any reporters from promises of confidentiality, all the while relying on those reporters not to pay any attention to pro forma waivers. Matthew Cooper's ultimate "release" from Rove was actually the result of a statement by Robert Luskin (Rove's lawyer) to the effect that if Cooper was going to jail to protect a source, that source was not Karl Rove. Cooper's lawyer then convinced him to see that as an opening to the explicit release he was looking for. The NY Times reported that when Cooper's lawyer announced in court that Cooper had been released to testify, Luskin appeared suprised, and later he was quoted as saying that Cooper had burned his client. What did he mean by that except that his client didn't actually intend to release Cooper from his confidentiality agreement? Andrea Mitchel has said Plame's CIA employment was a fairly well known fact in Washington. I haven't heard any reporters but Andrea Mitchell who are not part of the Republican noise machine make that claim. And how would reporters be privy to that information if the Wilsons' neighbors and close friends didn't know? And Mitchell herself is not above suspicion; one of the subpoenas issued by Fitzgerald in January 2004 was for the guest list of a July 16, 2003 White House reception honoring Gerald Ford's 90th birthday, among whose guests were reported to be Andrea Mitchell and her husband, Alan Greenspan. She may not exactly be a neutral observer. If he told a reporter about Plame it was to convey that Wilson got the Niger gig because of his wife's recomendation, not to out the woman. As far as Rove knew, plame was just a CIA analyst working out of CIA HQ. (1) Wilson did not get "the Niger gig" because of his wife's recommendation; that canard has been disproved many times over. But even if Valerie Wilson had been the first one to say, when the CIA was looking around for someone to investigate the Niger uranium claims, "I think my husband might be able to help out with that," what would be the big deal? Why would Rove think that a point worth pushing? One look at Wilson's resume shows that he was eminently, even uniquely, qualified for that mission. So what was Rove's purpose in mentioning that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA except to out her? (2) If Rove knew that Plame was CIA but didn't know precisely what she did, then he should have had better sense than to be tossing her name around carelessly. Even I know better than that, and I don't have a White House security clearance. If Rove didn't know better than that, he's too stupid to hold a security clearance. [new] Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#50) by dbp on Jul 31, 2005 -- 07:32:33 PM EST Hi slb, Again, good post. On point 1. from your post. Please see page 39 of the Senate Intellegance Report (page 39 on the scan, not the page ind. by adobe) http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf I would like to know where it has been "disproved many times over". I don't see it as any big deal really--his credentials were fine etc. On point 2. If Rove didn't know that Plame was covert, then it would be better not to look further into it: If he didn't know through official channels that she was covert, then he is not covered by the Id Protection Act. If he looked into it and found that she was covert, then his hands would have been tied as far as revealing how he was hired. Just looking into classified info on the spouse of an opponent of the admnistration may, in itself, be an abuse of power. (Anybody remember FBI filegate?)See the relevant part of the statute at the end of this post. Joe Wilson didn't say he was hired by the Vice President's office in his NYT op/ed, but clearly people could jump to that conclusion given the wording of the piece. Given the conclusions Wilson made in the op/ed, it certainly would not be in the interest of the administration for the public to think that one of their own people (Wilson) came to the conclusion that the President was untruthfull. The above would have more power to convince the public than the truth: Joe Wilson is a liberal Democrat (nothing wrong with that--just happens to be the case) who presumably had never favored the war in the first place. That someone like this would find evidence to confirm their own belief is not convincing to most people--no matter how good the evidence is. Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, 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, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [ Parent Reply to This ]