James Marcinkowski on the Plame Affair

July 22, 2005 7:20 PM

Testimony of former CIA case officer James Marcinkowski on the Plame Affair, via David Corn. Now that the US government has exposed a CIA case officer and endangered her contacts, it will be much more difficult for CIA officers to recruit informants in the future. Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost. ... What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us.
posted by russilwvong (79 comments total)

There is no 'safety' if you are a covert CIA agent.
There will be a lot of bicker and blather from both sides, but it comes down to this:

Follow the G.W.B.-ROVE line of reasoning, or be Neutralized.
Either outed by the administration to a secret hungry journalist, or be 'shaken up' by your New Boss. Or detained/shot by those you were spying on.

I think that G.B. Sr. probably didn't have much good to say to his son about the CIA, and Junior decided he was going to shake things up like a sno-globe, regardless of the consequences, (he's never worried/gotten in trouble over them before..).

If you are not telling them what they want to hear, you're probably an apologist for the terrorists. You're out. Replaced by someone who gives them exactly what they want to hear.

What a clusterfuck-o-rama.
posted by Balisong at 7:34 PM on July 22, 2005

What's worse, is the people that don't get outed.
They must be spinning the ball to give the admin. the justifications they so desire.
Maybe to save their jobs/careers, maybe they just think that way.
Either way, I think we are short-changing our selves by getting back into the same group-think mentality that has bestowed upon us the glory that is present day Iraq.
posted by Balisong at 7:47 PM on July 22, 2005

Excellent link. Thanks.
posted by homunculus at 7:49 PM on July 22, 2005

While some will deride the source of the link you have chose as a partisan, the substance of the story is being carried widely.
posted by spock at 7:55 PM on July 22, 2005

So why did the democrats schedule this on the "garbage day" of the news cycle? Lowest possible impact day. Few will notice it and the impact will be gone by Monday.
posted by spock at 7:57 PM on July 22, 2005

Every day matters, spock. Given the impressive way in which the news cycle did not pause over the Roberts nomination, and has not even been derailed by more "terra" in London, Egypt, and Iraq, I think keeping this fire fanned was the idea. Every day is Plame day in my house.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:01 PM on July 22, 2005

Any chance of seeing James Marcinkowski (or other CIA reps?) on with the Sunday talking heads (or - dare I suggest - 60 Minutes?). The agency has been pretty quiet (overall) but I think there's some serious blood in the water and we are past the tipping point. The point he is making in a nutshell is: Are you a partisan or are you an American?
posted by spock at 8:09 PM on July 22, 2005

Very interesting perspective... thanks for bringing this issue up.
posted by rolypolyman at 8:13 PM on July 22, 2005

This is a huge deal and should be repeated until it starts to sink into the American people's concious.

spock, that's a very clear way of putting it. The CIA is pissed because they got screwed because of some petty revenge and smear campaign. And Bush won't even suspend the main suspect. The message that sends to the country and to our allies is not a good one. Silence speaks volumes and inaction is its own action.
posted by fenriq at 8:49 PM on July 22, 2005

What pisses me off the most is that the CIA is filled with thousands of really talented, supremely dedicated professionals. Our president is very much an amateur compared to these "folks," yet he presumed to instruct them on the intelligence, then dictate to them the conclusions that should be drawn. And to add insult to injury, proceeded to blame them for his own fucking mistake, and finally, the coup de grace, utterly failed to even make a show of finding the treasonous motherfucker that outted one of their own.

I have the utmost admiration and respect for the people who work in our intelligence community--and know from personal experience that it's not an easy gig to get into (just ask Richard Nixon, whose application was rejected by the FBI). I would be outrageously pissed if I were one of them. I imagine their "love of country" is the only thing stopping some of them from pulling a "JFK" on George's sorry ass.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:20 PM on July 22, 2005

But this is a non-story! She worked a desk job! She's a nobody! She's a Democrat plant, a liar, a hippie, she caused the tsunami! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
posted by fungible at 9:46 PM on July 22, 2005

Note the personal degradation as printed in the article:
"who say that Valerie Wilson was only a desk jockey and dismiss her undercover status as "light" or "flimsy,"

Sound like the dismissal of the reporter who chose jail rather than reveal her source?
posted by Cranberry at 10:16 PM on July 22, 2005

from the statement of Marcinkowski: Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost.

from the NYT editorial page, july 19: A reporter promises confidentiality, and the paper backs up the journalist because otherwise the public will not learn what it needs to know

Marcinkowski: What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us

NYT editorial july 21: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., testified yesterday that since his decision to turn over notes in the Valerie Wilson case to the federal prosecutor, Time reporters had shown him mail "from valuable sources who insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine." The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced it will not publish two investigative reports because they are based on leaked documents and the paper fears the possibility of subpoenas. Its editor said, "Jail is too high a price to pay." We regret that decision, but it should at least ring alarm bells for Congress.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:27 PM on July 22, 2005

This is a huge deal and should be repeated until it starts to sink into the American people's concious.

No it doesn't. Let the american people hear it once and make their own decision. Some will agree with you, some won't. You'll have to deal with that. Repeating it until your blue in the face won't change that fact.
posted by justgary at 11:44 PM on July 22, 2005

Fitzgerald. The American people don't matter here, just the special prosecutor. And it seems like he has something to say. I'm looking forward to it.
posted by bardic at 11:59 PM on July 22, 2005

Yeah, yeah, that stuff about blowing agents cover is all true...unless you're the party that Jesus picked to win the holy war.
posted by telstar at 12:10 AM on July 23, 2005

I think repetition does change peoples perceptions justgary. I am not saying if this is a good thing or not, it just is. At this point I don't see why Rove should be treated differently then any other politician or celebrity. As has been pointed out by other people, if this was the Clinton administration there would be a shitstorm by now.

Equal treatment.

I dislike the process as it stands currently, the only marginal way to improve it is to apply it to all sides.
posted by edgeways at 12:10 AM on July 23, 2005

justgary, why do you think they replay commercials? Is it so you can see it six times or so that someone else can see it once?

If everyone heard this the first time then there wouldn't be a point in repeating it.

As for accepting people's conclusions, I have no doubt that some people will not be swayed either way by this news. But I also know that there an awful lot of people who get ever closer to losing their faith in Bush. Check his approval ratings, check what people think of his handling of the war. People are tired of his schtick.
posted by fenriq at 12:20 AM on July 23, 2005

What's happening here, with polls showing that very few Americans believe the Bush administration on the whole issue, is the American public, having been fed years of propagandistic books, films, and television shows, since the Cold War, about how magnificent the CIA is in protecting our freedom (despite, you know, having often done quite the opposite), feels as if it's looking out for Jack Ryan. You know Jack Ryan, Tom Clancy's CIA agent, played by AlecBaldwinHarrisonFordBenAffleck in the movies. By this point in a Clancy novel or film, Jack Ryan (or someone) would have grabbed the tweedy, bespectacled, fat, balding asshole politico, who thought a CIA agent's identity was just more political capital to be spent when expedient, and beaten the shit out of him, leaving him bleeding, glasses broken, pissing himself on the floor of the Oval Office. Hell, where do you wanna go with this? Jason Bourne? Sydney Bristow? Bill Cosby on I Spy? George Smiley? James fuckin' Bond? All of the spy glorification in pop culture has made it a cardinal rule: you don't blow someone's cover.

The Rove story has legs because the corporate media that lionizes spies over and over as a way of justifying secret operations against Americans, as well as bullshit like the Contras and more, has taught the public to love them some CIA agents. In a Clancy novel, we know who the villains are: they are just as likely to be the bureaucrats in DC as they are the arms dealers. And both should be dealt with as criminals.

So all Democrats really have to do is stand back and let these fuckers twist in the wind. When we hear Rove told Matt Cooper, "I've said too much already," we know that that's the line of scoundrels and weasels trying to cover their own asses. When we hear the President lower the ethical standards bar by which one can work for the White House all the way to the floor, we know that he's covering for his friend. It's all SOP for those who, it seems more and more each day, are SOL.

Rude Pundit: Pop Culture Has Its Way With Karl Rove (or The Revenge of Jack Ryan)
posted by y2karl at 12:49 AM on July 23, 2005

What pisses me off the most is that the CIA is filled with thousands of really talented, supremely dedicated professionals.

Yeah, they did a super job equipping and training Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan (who later joined Al-Qaeda), supporting Augusto Pinochet, supporting Saddam's military coup and subsequently his rule up until 1990, supervising sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, overthrowing Iran's government (thus paving the way for Khomeini's coup), experimenting with mind control on Americans (project MKULTRA), and, oh yeah..sitting on their pretty asses, probably watching CNN, on September 11th, 2001.
posted by ori at 3:33 AM on July 23, 2005

they did a super job equipping and training Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan (who later joined Al-Qaeda)

Actually, they did do a super job. The Russians left, didn't they?

As for the various nefarious black-ops coups and such, you're blaming the executioner for the judges ruling. The elements that supported Pinochet, for example, include President Nixon, Treasury Secretary John Connally and his assistant John Hennessy, Secretary of State William Rogers, assistant for international affairs Peter Peterson, several big-business enterprises (notabely ITT and Chase Manhattan Bank), Henry Kissenger (of course), and yes, the CIA. Also remember that Project Camelot (the start of covert action in Chile) was initially sponsored by the Pentagon, under their Advanced Research Projects Agency.

I'm not trying to give the CIA a pass, only illustrating that they were merely the instrument for the aspirations of greedy, megalomaniacal jackbooted thugs that pulled the strings and paid the bills. Just like today.

sitting on their pretty asses, probably watching CNN, on September 11th, 2001

Highly unlikely. After all, they were among the chorus of people warning of the attack before it happened. For example, their August 6th memo to the president: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S..
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:24 AM on July 23, 2005

I wonder when the 40s - 50s are going to roll around again.
posted by password at 5:45 AM on July 23, 2005

the CIA is filled with thousands of really talented, supremely dedicated professionals.

I Agree.
posted by forforf at 6:20 AM on July 23, 2005

Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., testified yesterday that since his decision to turn over notes in the Valerie Wilson case to the federal prosecutor, Time reporters had shown him mail "from valuable sources who insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine."

Translation: Paul Wolfiwitz is no longer willing to give us anonymous "exclusives" about the latest school being painted in Iraq and the latest rumors about the impending nomination of a woman to the Supreme Court.

Cry me a river.
posted by deanc at 9:32 AM on July 23, 2005

Just to look on the bright side, anything that reduces the CIA’s ability to operate, especially outside of the US, is fine by me.
posted by signal at 9:34 AM on July 23, 2005

No it doesn't. Let the american people hear it once and make their own decision. Some will agree with you, some won't. You'll have to deal with that. Repeating it until your blue in the face won't change that fact.

This is brilliantly naive, justgary. I'd bet that a random sample of Americans would still yield a big percentage of folks that don't even know this issue exists. And then another giant chunk that will assume it all worked out OK if they don't hear anything again.

If it's important, it must be not only shouted from the roof tops, it must me repeated often. That's the only way you get through to people.

Hat Maui: my personal feeling is that that editor is completely full of shit. But in any event, he's a coward. The only chilling effect by Cooper's testimony is a good one: the anonymous sources were lying and smearing and using the media as a partisan mallet. That kind of shit needs to quit being tolerated by journalists, and outing schmucks like Rove will make things better, not worse.
posted by teece at 9:40 AM on July 23, 2005

If someone goes ahead with roves march of the frog, so be it. But it sounds iffy....
"stay away from her, she is agency" is that the gist of what karl said...well that reporter got suckered but i still don't like the outing by rovish aides and clammy reporters...who really gave her up?

If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost. ... What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us.

there is that risk but this won't change much. any intel agency worth it's salt already knew she was a "agent" They ASSUME this with any embassy personal.

George Smiley? James fuckin' Bond? All of the spy glorification in pop culture has made it a cardinal rule: you don't blow someone's cover.

PLAleezze leave {george} outta this, besides Le Carre thought flemings Bond books were pornographic and Fleming probably would have called Le Carre "The spy whom failed me" If the author of this statement knew his fiction, smileys "cover" was broken years ago...and even Leamus was blown, his sources were being killed by Mundt. There is no "blown", everyone is blown, all but the newest source hence all the chalk marks and little packets. Heck even G.S. knew who Karla was, met him even, well tried to recruit him.
still, wether an agent is known or not, one does not leak this to reporters.
posted by clavdivs at 10:07 AM on July 23, 2005

Let the american people hear it once and make their own decision. Some will agree with you, some won't. You'll have to deal with that. Repeating it until your blue in the face won't change that fact.

The Republican campaign strategy, in fact does prove that repeating something until you are blue in the face causes people to agree with you.

Actually, though, what's interesting about this scandal is that it is out of the hands of the American people. Rove and/or Libby isn't going to get indicted on the strength of an opinion poll. They will be indicted if the grand jury decides there's enough evidence to do so, whether the "American people" like it or not.

That said, when you tell "the American people" that "someone blew the cover of a CIA agent," they immediately realize that this is wrong. By contrast, if you try to explain how, "well, this agent was just a female desk-worker who got a job for her husband, and she deserved it, and Rove/Libby might not have violated the technical terms of a 1982 law, and in any case, the CIA makes too many things secret, anyway," their eyes willl glaze over, and all most people will remember is "someone blew the cover of a CIA agent," and a steady diet of James Bond movies and Tom Clancy books will cause them to think that this is a bad, bad thing.
posted by deanc at 10:18 AM on July 23, 2005

any intel agency worth it's salt already knew she was a "agent" They ASSUME this with any embassy personal.

Plame was not embassy personnel. She did not travel under a diplomatic passport, and her cover was as an executive of, I believe, an energy-consulting firm (the consequence, of this, of course, is that she would not have benefitted from diplomatic immunity if she was caught). Now everyone who ostensibly worked for this firm has now had his or her cover blown, as well.
posted by deanc at 10:21 AM on July 23, 2005

Rove is a traitor, Bush is a traitor, and yet the CIA is an agency working against the interests of the people of America and the world. So I say hang 'em all.
posted by davy at 10:38 AM on July 23, 2005

No it doesn't. Let the american people hear it once and make their own decision. Some will agree with you, some won't. You'll have to deal with that. Repeating it until your blue in the face won't change that fact.

Not even close to true. How many people still believe that WMD's were found in Iraq? And how many still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Unfortunately, there are plenty of them despite the fact that at some point they must have come in contact with facts to the contrary.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:52 AM on July 23, 2005

Rove/Libby might not have violated the technical terms of a 1982 law

At this point, that looks like a less grounded counter-point. Now that we know about the memo marked "S" it looks more and more like they did break the actual law. Rove and/or Libby learned about her status from a classified memo that mentioned that her covert status. They then leaked this knowledge to a reporter. This covers every qualifier in the law.

So basically the deriders are left pushing the issue of her level of covertness and the real world impact of the story.
posted by aburd at 11:01 AM on July 23, 2005

Well, if ever the US should withstand a WMD attack that could have been prevented had the WMD "bureau" of the CIA not been compromised, I wonder if the people responsible in the Administration will "do the right thing" (you know, in the Japanese sense).

Ah, sometimes I crack me up. I don't think any of those SOBs have much of a clue what "doing the right thing" actually means, whether it's spoken literally or as an expression.
posted by clevershark at 11:13 AM on July 23, 2005

Why is the media still looking at this as a red vs. blue issue. Fine, if the pleebs and sychophants out there want to stand by their man, whatever. But the media should know better. I was offended to find even CNN highlights this issue as part of a dem. radio broadcast, rather than the issues it contained. Republicans are going to go to the article, see the donkey, and not even consider a word of what is being said. Its not a if you side with one party or the other issue anymore; its did someone fuck up and leak so and so's name, and what should we do about it.

Said ABC poll even reflects its no longer a partisian issue. I just with the media would back off of saying dem said this and rep said that and just start addressing the issue at hand. Though maybe that's too much to wish for.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:55 AM on July 23, 2005

Look at the polls and you can see that the administration is losing public confidence. An ABC News poll released Monday showed that just 25 percent of the public now believes the White House is cooperating fully with Fitzgerald's probe, compared to 47 percent when the investigation began in September 2003. Most striking in the ABC poll was the unanimity of opinion across party lines. Asked if Karl Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information, 71 percent of Republicans said yes. That was just a few points lower than the 75 percent average for all voters.

Bush White House ignores accountability in favor of partisan attacks
posted by y2karl at 12:11 PM on July 23, 2005

just 25 percent of the public now believes the White House is cooperating fully with Fitzgerald's probe

But, truth be told, probably only 5% of those polled even know what the Fitzgerald probe is.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:40 PM on July 23, 2005

But, truth be told, probably only 5% of those polled even know what the Fitzgerald probe is.

The ABC Poll did not refer to the investigation as the "Fitzgerald probe."

The question asked was: "Is the White House fully cooperating fully with the leak investigation?"

From ABC News - PDF version with full questionnaire and results.
posted by ericb at 9:28 PM on July 23, 2005

And the actual progression of questions in the ABC poll is:

"1. As you may know, a federal prosecutor is investigating whether someone in the White House may have broken the law by identifying an undercover CIA agent to some news reporters. One reporter has gone to jail rather than reveal her source. How closely are you following this issue - very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?

2. Do you think this is a very serious matter, somewhat serious, not too serious or not serious at all?

3. Do you think the White House is or is not fully cooperating with this
investigation?"

posted by ericb at 9:38 PM on July 23, 2005

Damn you and your facts!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:35 PM on July 23, 2005

Plame was not embassy personnel. She did not travel under a diplomatic passport, and her cover was as an executive of, I believe, an energy-consulting firm

she is married to an embassador? while not personnel, it affords her some latitude but working for an energy company is even more of a tip off.
posted by clavdivs at 11:02 AM on July 24, 2005

She wasn't undercover, and hadn't worked overseas for like 9 years or something. Give it up already. Go whine about the SCOTUS or take up yoga or something.
posted by dsquid at 8:11 PM on July 24, 2005

dsquid, so the treasonous outing of a CIA agent is OK, because she had been a LONG TIME undercover agent?

Grasping at technicalities? Fumbling for definitions? Arguing semantics?
What a true pillar of shit your kind has erected over this once great land.
posted by Balisong at 9:34 PM on July 24, 2005

dsquid, so the treasonous outing of a CIA agent is OK, because she had been a LONG TIME undercover agent?

In order to be a "covert agent" per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 a person must have been stationed overseas in the last five years. Wilson's book puts them back in the United States six years before the supposed 'crime' took place. Hence, no crime would have been commited under the IIPA.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:44 PM on July 24, 2005

Steve, you and squid are quibbling.

If you really gave a shit about the security and intelegence gathering capabilities of the US, you should be outraged. But instead you make rationalizations and excuses.
posted by Balisong at 9:56 PM on July 24, 2005

SAL and squid-A CIA Vet's Message for the Save-Rove Spinners: "A True Patriot Would Shut Up"
read the post.
posted by pointilist at 10:49 PM on July 24, 2005

She wasn't undercover, and hadn't worked overseas for like 9 years or something. Give it up already. Go whine about the SCOTUS or take up yoga or something.

"Although Val started off with official cover, she later joined a select group of intelligence officers a few years later when she became a NOC, i.e. a Non-Official Cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. She was using cover, which we now know because of the leak to Robert Novak, of the consulting firm Brewster-Jennings. When she traveled overseas she did not use or have an official passport. If she had been caught engaged in espionage activities while traveling overseas without the black passport she could have been executed.

We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department....

As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting. To those such as Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, P. J. O'Rourke, and Representative Roy Blunt I can only say one thing—you are wrong. I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation. [Testimony of Larry C. Johnson, CIA Official | July 22, 2005]

posted by ericb at 11:01 PM on July 24, 2005

Incompetence on Senate Intel

"I guess Senator Pat Roberts believes that if he repeats a lie long enough it eventually becomes true. While it is one thing for a political bag carrier like Ken Mehlman to be woefully ignorant about CIA practices and procedures, it is downright alarming that Senator Roberts can be so misinformed. Today, while appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Roberts repeated the specious claim that Valerie Plame could not be undercover because she went to work everyday at CIA Headquarters.

Folks, there is no excuse for this level of incompetence. There are thousands of undercover CIA employees who drive through the three gates at CIA Headquarters in McLean, Virginia everyday. And this Senator from Kansas who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee has the audacity to blame CIA for intelligence failures? How can he recognize failures when he does not even understand the very simple basics about people who work undercover at CIA. He should spend more time reading up on the CIA and less time memorizing Ken Mehlman talking points."

posted by ericb at 11:04 PM on July 24, 2005

If Plame was not undercover why then did the CIA ask the Justice Department to investigate her "outing" and why did the Bush Justice Department agree to investigate?
posted by ericb at 11:07 PM on July 24, 2005

Ya' know what? Claiming that Plame was/wasn't a covert agent doesn't mean a damn thing. All of the hand-waving, repetitious "talking points" (from either side) don't mean a damn thing. All that matters is what Special Prosectuor Fitzgerald and the grand jury finds relevant. Until then, anything any of us "say" - or, "claim" - is mere speculation.
posted by ericb at 11:15 PM on July 24, 2005

*says*
posted by ericb at 11:19 PM on July 24, 2005

*claims*
posted by ericb at 11:19 PM on July 24, 2005

Quibbling? Balisong, you asked why the time frame was relevant. I explained.

Claiming that Plame was/wasn't a covert agent doesn't mean a damn thing.

To people who understand how the law works, it sure does.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 has very specific and high standards set out in the statute. A prosecutor can not get a conviction unless the accused meets those standards.

I know that a lot of you HATE Rove, and want really really bad for him to go to jail or worse. But ignoring the wording of the IIPA won't get you anywhere.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:01 AM on July 25, 2005

1999-2003 = 4 years. Sorry Steve.
posted by mr.marx at 3:26 AM on July 25, 2005

Hey Steve,

If you want to get legalistic how about the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch:
http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/reference/rfsoc_99.pdf

General Principle 14 on Pg. 6
Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

Pg. 59 talks specifically about use of non-public information with examples. Example number 5 looks like it might qualify.

Definition of nonpublic information. For purposes of this section, nonpublic information is information that the employee gains by reason of Federal employment and that he knows or reasonably should know has not been made available to the general public. It includes information that he knows or reasonably should know:
(1) Is routinely exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 or otherwise protected from disclosure by statute, Executive order or regulation;
(2) Is designated as confidential by an agency; or
(3) Has not actually been disseminated to the general public and is not authorized to be made available to the public on request.

Example 5: An employee of the Army Corps of Engineers is actively involved in the activities of an organization whose goals relate to protection of the environment. The employee may not, other than as permitted by agency procedures, give the organization or a newspaper reporter nonpublic information about long-range plans to build a particular dam.

Why wouldn't the President hold a staff member to the ethical standards outlined here? Surely Rove would have had to have read the guide as part of his employement by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Government employees are fired or resign because of ethics violations on a regular basis. Why does this not apply when the violator is a supporter of the party in power.

Wong
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 6:56 AM on July 25, 2005

Steve-Balisong, you asked why the time frame was relevant.

No I didn't. I said "If you really gave a shit about the security and intelegence gathering capabilities of the US, you should be outraged. But instead you make rationalizations and excuses.
posted by Balisong at 9:56 PM PST on July 24 [!]
"

You don't give a shit, and you are making excuses.
Time framing her covertness is grasping for a technicality to weasel your way out of this.
posted by Balisong at 7:23 AM on July 25, 2005

The 1982 law isn't the only law that may have been broken. There's also conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, and the Espionage Act. John Dean has more on other potential crimes.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, the presiding judge in the case, said, "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime." President Bush also said that unauthorized disclosure of an undercover CIA officer's identity was a "criminal action."

Now that we know about the memo marked "S" it looks more and more like they did break the actual law.

The paragraph about Valerie Plame was classified as secret; the entire memo was top secret.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:24 AM on July 25, 2005

Before everyone piles on S@L (oops, too late), John Dean seems to agree that the IIPA wasn't violated, specifically because of the time frame issue.
posted by kableh at 9:08 AM on July 25, 2005

What I am really frustrated at is this:

I believe is that if this whole story becomes a non-issue because of some technicality, much like the legal limbo if Enemy Combatants, that it will serve to justify similar situations in the future.

If this story goes nowhere, how long before it happens again? What will we do about it then?
Is it perfectly OK to out an undercover agent to smear and discredit a political rival?
Is there other crimes or treasonous activity that could be used to smear and discredit political rivals? Are they going to be OK just as long as you can point to a difference in the semantics?
I fear this, and the other hard handed tactics will be used by other administrations.

What if this is done by the Democrats, or Libertarians next time?
If nothing else, this administration is schooling every future politician of the finer points of weaseling out from under scrutinization. I have a feeling that, while Bush, et. al. may be fumbling their responses, to cover up their power abuses, those that perpetrate future scandals will have worked out all the bugs.

It's really not that far of a step down the slope from this to saying that ANYTHING is justified because it is put forth by those in power.
It won't always be the Republicans or the Neo-cons. That's what scares me most.
posted by Balisong at 9:23 AM on July 25, 2005

1997-2003 = 6 years. Sorry mr.marx.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:24 AM on July 25, 2005

if this whole story becomes a non-issue because of some technicality

No, it becomes a non-issue because no law was broken.

There are so many people who think they 'got Rove' that they are blinded by their partisanship to the idea that a crime many not have been committed. They have already convicted Rove in their heads.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:28 AM on July 25, 2005

Steve, what'll you do when Pres. Hillary does something like this?

Du you suppose she might have a political enemy or two in some secret area of the govt?

She's finding out that there are so many ways to abuse power that she never thought of, that she won't squander those opportunities the next time.
posted by Balisong at 9:31 AM on July 25, 2005

As long an no laws are technically broken, it's all good?

This will be used in the future. Records will be called up to just see how long it has been since someone's legal status of being undercover lapsed. Before the leak. They'll have already had a pow-wow with their team of lawyers to point out just how not illegal it is, and she'll fuck us all.

Thanks for setting the precident.
posted by Balisong at 9:40 AM on July 25, 2005

Steve, when did you start prioritizing your party over your country?
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:47 AM on July 25, 2005

"Go whine about the SCOTUS or take up yoga or something."
howzabout u go completely fuck yourself?
dsquid, Steve_at_Linnwood - understand this: unless you are a permanent paper pusher, you are a defacto "covert agent" at the CIA much like everyone is a “special” agent at the FBI
What, exactly, is it do you think they do there?
Anyone who is an agent could conceivably ‘go undercover’ or be used to gather intelligence (which, see, is what they do there) in a covert manner. At the very least Rove screwed any future ops that were planned with her and hosed her chances to do them. Even if they are not currently on a covert op there are people associated with them.
(So ok, let’s out every narc cop that is currently off assignment. Say, those rookie cops aren’t undercover, let’s tell everyone they’re cops and pass around photos).
Whine? Do you have any idea of the magnitude of this?I mean what are you nuts? I have friends in this line of work, I had a clearance so I can keep a secret, but do you think I even want to know thing one about what they’re up to? Ef no.
This can only be called treasonous. She was outed. Someone is responsible. Find them and shoot them. I’d shoot them myself and I’m completely opposed to the death penalty. If it is Rove - hey, let’s let him give away nuclear secrets for political expediancy too. Nukes haven’t been used for 60 years right?


“about how magnificent the CIA is in protecting our freedom (despite, you know, having often done quite the opposite)”
Well yeah, they’ve done a good job with OUR freedoms. On the other hand, it’s just a machine. They follow the orders of the civilian government.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:47 AM on July 25, 2005

I know that a lot of you HATE Rove, and want really really bad for him to go to jail or worse. But ignoring the wording of the IIPA won't get you anywhere.

That's not really the point of the post. Partisanship aside (I'm Canadian, I have no stake in the Republican-Democrat conflict), the CIA and other US intelligence agencies are vital to the security of the US against terrorism, because they're the ones who can find out about attacks and prevent them before they happen; and of course they're also involved in tracking and preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs.

In the long term, the reason the Plame Affair is important is that it's damaged the ability of the CIA to recruit and retain informants; nobody is going to want to put their lives at the mercy of US domestic politics. This is bad news for US national security. Whether Rove actually committed a crime, or will at least get fired, is beside the point.
posted by russilwvong at 11:51 AM on July 25, 2005

"But even if Rove skates past any legal trouble, that still leaves the question of means and ends. Although Democrats deplored what they viewed as an Administration attempt to silence its critics, to the intelligence community what mattered was that in the course of political warfare, a spy had been sacrificed. Plame was one of the rare operatives to become an NOC, that is, a CIA employee who operates under nonofficial cover. Such officers, who may pose as businesspeople or students, have no diplomatic immunity and so are much more vulnerable if caught spying. They often work abroad for U.S. companies that have secret agreements with the CIA to take them in as employees or for front companies the agency sets up. A former CIA station chief tells TIME that it can cost the agency anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million to establish an NOC overseas, depending on how deep and extensive the cover must be.

CIA sources say Plame held highly sensitive jobs during the past two decades. In the late 1990s she was serving as an NOC, working as an analyst with Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a CIA front company that has been shut down. ‘She was pretty and had brains and ambition and loyalty,’ says a former clandestine officer who worked with her. ‘Everything was there.’

....But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. 'I'm beyond disgusted,' a CIA official said last week. 'I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent.'

Whatever the damage to Plame, there remains the cost paid by the CIA generally. In the wake of the disclosure, foreign intelligence services were known to have retraced her steps and contacts to discover more about how the CIA operates in their countries. Outside of a James Bond movie, spies rarely steal secrets themselves; they recruit foreigners to do it for them. That often means bribing a government official to break his country's laws and pass state secrets to the CIA. 'It becomes extremely hard if you're working overseas and recruiting [foreign] agents knowing that some sloth up in the Executive Branch for political reasons can reveal your identity,' says Jim Marcinkowski, who served four years in the agency and is now the deputy city attorney for Royal Oak, Mich. 'Certainly this kind of information travels around the world very quickly. And it raises the level of fear of coming in contact with the United States for any reason.'" [Time Magazine | July 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:11 PM on July 25, 2005

Press Secretary Scott McClellan gets another grilling during today's White House press briefing with reporters, asking questions on the Plame/CIA leak case, with some centering on the emerging angle now known as the “12-hour gap.”
posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on July 25, 2005

Senators Urge Congressional Investigation Into Leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame’s Name.
posted by ericb at 1:43 PM on July 25, 2005

Wall Street Journal: CIA leak probe may linger into the fall.

"Questions about the outcome of a federal probe into the leaking of a CIA agent's identity could linger into the fall, creating a long stretch of uncertainty for President Bush and his team on a sensitive topic."

[Wall Street Journal - requires paid subscription | July 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on July 25, 2005

What Did the President Know?

"...the CIA leak story is taking on more and more of the trappings of the classic Washington political scandal -- the saving grace for Bush being that his party controls Congress, and that thus far, Republicans have closed ranks behind him.

But get ready for more and more talk about the parallels between this story and the Clinton intern scandal -- and of course, Watergate.

We're already hearing some of the prototypical questions being raised. Here's former presidential adviser David Gergen, on ABC's "This Week" yesterday: 'What did the president know and when did he know it?'"

[Washington Post | July 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:51 PM on July 25, 2005

"I tells 'ya son, yer gonna drive me to drinkin', if you don't stop drivin' that Hot Rod Lincoln!"
posted by Balisong at 2:31 PM on July 25, 2005

Sorry, that's the best way I could find to put it:

I'm just gonna get drunk for a while, wake me up at the next election. I got some ass to hand back to some people.
posted by Balisong at 4:20 PM on July 25, 2005

understand this: unless you are a permanent paper pusher, you are a defacto "covert agent" at the CIA much like everyone is a “special” agent at the FBI

What, do you just make this stuff up? Do you think that just because you say it is so, that makes it? You are flat out wrong. A "covert agent" is a very specifically defined phrase.

As long an no laws are technically broken, it's all good?

Yes, in a country of laws, no one goes to prison unless they break one. You can't send people to prison simple because you really really don't like them.

what'll you do when Pres. Hillary does something like this?

When she does something like what? Not break a law? Well, I guess I'll pretty much not fake outrage over it.

The large number of people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about, that is: they are uninformed on the known facts and statues involved in this case, amaze me beyond belief.

Unless Fitzgerald comes out with something new and already unknown to the public, this is a classic Washington 'Summer Story' about nothing.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:22 PM on July 25, 2005

Steve: this is not a summer story about nothing. Let's say that Rove is innocent until proven guilty of any crime, as is any American. Isn't it still about accountability, honor, and honesty?

Doesn't it bother you in the least that Bush keeps claiming that he doesn't know the facts when he could just ask Rove? Doesn't it bother you even the teensiest bit that Rove claimed literally for years that he knew nothing about the Plame issue and then it comes out that he did, in fact, bring her up to a reporter? Why didn't he mention this a couple of years ago and then go on to explain about how he didn't use her name and that she wasn't really a covert agent?

Let's just suppose for the moment that he told the truth in the grand jury and that there was no cover up. Don't you think that there is still just the faintest whiff of weasel surrounding the case?

During the Clinton debacle, many Dems kept saying that he shouldn't be impeached for a mere blow job, when the fact was that the issues were much more complex than just sex. At the time, I thought that many Dems were in denial about the whole thing and now I am seeing that the Reps are in the same boat.

So tell me, Steve, doesn't this boil down to honesty--this Administration's honesty to the country and our own honesty to ourselves? Or is it all partisanship?
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:55 AM on July 26, 2005

The large number of people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about, that is: they are uninformed on the known facts and statues involved in this case, amaze me beyond belief.
right back at ya steve
posted by pointilist at 7:56 AM on July 26, 2005

Furthermore, back in 2003, GWB talked about how difficult it might be to locate the "evildoers" who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame. Now that things are breaking, the leaker has gone from being an evildoer to--well, he hasn't been indicted.

Irrespective of whether or not Rove is ever charged with a crime, what he did was cowardly and irresponsible. We deserve better than the ilks of him in this administration and we deserve a president who realizes this and takes steps to instill honesty and integrity into the White House.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:14 AM on July 26, 2005

WaPo, page 1, tomorrow-- ...The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case.
Prosecutors have questioned former CIA director George J. Tenet and deputy director John E. McLaughlin, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, State Department officials, and even a stranger who approached columnist Robert D. Novak on the street. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:19 PM on July 26, 2005

on the Senate investigating Fitzpatrick: they might be planning to pull the Ollie North trick: Run an investigation and grant all those involved (Rove, Libby, etc.) all-purpose immunity.
posted by amberglow at 9:22 PM on July 26, 2005

What, do you just make this stuff up? Do you think that just because you say it is so, that makes it? You are flat out wrong. A "covert agent" is a very specifically defined phrase. Steve_at_Linnwood

And from Amberglow's WaPo link:
Harlow {the former CIA spokesman} said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:07 PM on July 26, 2005