Question of your perception.. outing of CIA Agent

[Renob]

@dublos

I’ve heard this too. It really startles me that it’s being used as a defense by administration supporters because even if it is accurate it doesn’t do anything to help Rove’s case. If anything it would seem to condem him further. Rove is way to savy not to know that even if it’s “known” by the cocktail circuit they cannot use it until it’s confirmed by someone in the administration.

If a reporter were to say “it is widely rumored that Mr. Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent”, then that reporter is the one that breaks the law regarding “outing” a CIA agent. If the reporter can say “according to unnamed White House sources” the reporter is able to shift the culpability to those White House sources who confirmed that rumor.

There is no way I’m believing Rove doing so was a mistake or that he was tricked into doing so. Mr. Rove is not a dumb man, especially on the topic of Washington dirty tricks, so I cannot believe he was played for the fool here.

I don’t know if he was played for a fool or not, but it seems clear there is no law that was broken here. The law, if I recall correctly, states that the agent must be under cover. Plame was not. Novak didn’t break the law by revealing she worked for the CIA and Rove didn’t break the law by possibly confirming this.

[GIGObuster]

@Renob

I don’t know if he was played for a fool or not, but it seems clear there is no law that was broken here. The law, if I recall correctly, states that the agent must be under cover. Plame was not. Novak didn’t break the law by revealing she worked for the CIA and Rove didn’t break the law by possibly confirming this.

A letter form the CIA:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf

30 January 2004

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Conyers:

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2003 to the Director of Central intelligence (DCI) regarding any contacts the Central intelligence agency has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) **to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover. ** The DCI has asked me to respond your letter on his behalf.

Executive order 12333 requires CIA to report to the Attorney General “possible violations of criminal law.” In accordance with executive order 12333 on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the chief of the counterespionage section of DOJ noting concern with recent articles on this subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the criminal division of DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed, DOJ that the CIA’s Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent again to DOJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003.

**By letter dated 16 September 2003, and in accordance with standard practice in such matters, the CIA informed DOJ that the Agency’s investigation into this matter was complete, provided DOJ a memorandum setting forth the results of that investigation, and requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. ** In a 29 September 2 003 letter, DOJ advised that the Counterespionage Section of DOJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.

Stanley M. Moskowitz
Director of Congressional Affairs

Thanks to PatriotX for finding that bit.

[Renob]

This (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm) backs up my contention that 1) a lot of people knew that Plame was a CIA agent, and 2) she was not undercover when her name was leaked and thus there was no violation of the law:

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent,” saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency’s headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
“She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat,” Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
“Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren’t minding the store here. … The agency never changed her cover status.”
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under “nonofficial cover” – also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson – also said that she worked under extremely light cover.
In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn’t been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment “within the last five years.”

[GIGObuster]

@Renob

This (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm) backs up my contention that 1) a lot of people knew that Plame was a CIA agent, and 2) she was not undercover when her name was leaked and thus there was no violation of the law:

So predictable, I saw before that same report of the Washington moonie times, it was really misleading and virtually the only one quoted in other sites, wonder why.
Of course, one can only shoot the messenger after finding how untrustworthy it is:
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,524486,00.html

Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame’s boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a “nice European city.” Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. “[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, ‘Yeah, he works for us,’” says Rustmann. “The degree of backstopping to a NOC’s cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is.”

For decades, a varying number of NOCs (the exact figure is classified) have been installed abroad in big multinational corporations, small companies or bogus academic posts. The more genteel rules of traditional espionage do not apply to NOCs. When the Soviets caught a diplomat doing spy work during the cold war, they roughed him up a little and sent him home. Unmasked NOCs, on the other hand, have met with much harsher fates: CIA officer Hugh Redmond was caught in Shanghai in 1951 posing as an employee of a British import-export company and spent 19 years in a Chinese prison before dying there. In early 1995 the French rolled up five CIA officers, including a woman who had been working as a NOC under business cover for about five years. Although the NOC caught in Paris in 1995 was simply sent home, “it might not have been so easy in an Arab country,” says a former CIA official familiar with the matter. “[NOCs] have no diplomatic status, so they can end up in slammers.”

That was in 2003, now Fred Rustmann is saying that he took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent”, her status was then no small thing, I see now that the real scandal is that at the time of her cover being blown, she was besides working at Langley, doing other secret stuff.

I have to really take issue with the Moonie Times: even here in Phoenix I have seen cars with CIA plates, they do mundane stuff, and like me in my work, I can switch suddenly to a different position, and it seems obvious to me that the real secret at that time was her presence in the front company, it would not be surprising to me that it is that part what Rove or others in this administration did blow. And other reports I have seen interviews of friends that were surprised that she was an agent. So no, with the CIA letter and other sources, I have to say I don’t trust the WT on this one.

[dublos]

Please keep in mind we’re in IMHO here, to discuss perception, i.e. your opinion on what spin either side is attempting to put out there and not whether one side or the other is telling the truth (which I have to admit I’ve been guilty of as well).

Perhaps if you’ve got to post a rebuttal about facts, since you’re most likely either reading or posting in either a GQ or GD thread on the same topic, you could limit your rebuttal to something like “Rebuttal to this spin found <here>” with a link to the appropriate GQ or GD post?

Otherwise I think the Moderators are really going to find this thread needs to be moved again.

Has anyone seen any particular “spin” on Mr. Libby? So far all I’ve seens is a pretty bare bones report and lots of online schoolyard humor playing on his last name.

[Rashak_Mani]

Certainly Bush’s perception was serious about it enough to say he would kick out of his government the leaker… so it seems like damage control now. Its ethically dubious to consider it less of a mistake once Rove was exposed.