# Wherein Scylla admonishes the left wing for casting Plame upon Rove **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 30, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737 "2006-08-30T01:20:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/361 "2006-09-07T09:42:53Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] A total fucking nutjob. [/quote] OK, so what? Again, why should I care that you’re waving your Johnson around? I’m not impressed. Somehow, the fact that there exists a guy named Johnson who’s “a total fucking nutjob” is supposed to be some strike against my argument? Wow, **Scylla**. I think you’ve lost it for good. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/362 "2006-09-07T09:55:27Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] How’s [Cliff May?](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/26/112629.shtml) [/quote] From GIGObuster’s cite: > [@](#): > > On the September 29, 2003, edition of The Big Story with John Gibson that NewsMax referenced, May also claimed: “Somebody else told it to me with a different spin. He said, Cliff, you’ve been too tough on Joe Wilson, accusing him of being a Bush-basher and a left-winger, because, you know, his wife works for the CIA. I mean, he’s really not quite that bad.” May repeated his claim on the September 30 edition of CNN’s American Morning: > > ``` > MAY: Look, I think there should be zero tolerance for anybody who outs a covert CIA operative. That's simply inexcusable behavior. That said, we don't know that's what happened at all. There's no evidence that's the case. I was the first to criticize Joe Wilson in print. In the research I did, I did know that his wife worked for the CIA. I didn't know what she was covert or whether she was merely an analyst. But that was -- it seemed like it was sort of an open secret. > > ``` So May found out about Plame being CIA in the brief interval between Wilson’s piece and Novak’s - when Rove, Libby, and others were whispering her name all over town. For some reason, he got the impression that it was hardly a well-kept secret. Can’t imagine why. > [@](#): > > Novak only wrote that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. She wasn’t “outed” as being “Covert” until Corn wrote a piece about it a few days later and May makes the strong logical case that Wilson himself outed his wife!!! Wow. Can you say “dumb as a post”? Can you recognize it in the mirror? If you are a CIA NOC, then when it becomes known that you work for the CIA _at all_, then your cover _as a NOC_ is blown. The important thing isn’t _whether the general public knows_ whether you were NOC at one time; the important thing is _whether the people a NOC was trying to obtain information about_ didn’t think about her because they had no idea she was CIA. Once they knew she was CIA, her effectiveness as a NOC was dead. > [@](#): > > It’s kind of a gotcha. Oh, I agree. Bush said that same thing about Iraq, and he was right in exactly the same way. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/363 "2006-09-07T10:40:23Z")
[Press release for Isikoff and Corn’s book](http://davidcorn.com/): > [@](#): > > Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, was the original leaker in the CIA leak case. But as he was disclosing information to columnist Robert Novak, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other top White House aides were engaged in a fierce campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson. Rove even told MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews that the Wilsons “were trying to screw the White House so the White House was going to screw them back.” ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/364 "2006-09-07T13:54:52Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] No. That’s not true. If you think it is please cite that as a condition of covert under Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] [/quote] Why would I look for the definition of ‘covert’ in section that describes the unlawful release of information? Tell you what, let’s use the correct source. **Title 50, chapter15, subchapter 4, section 426, Definitions:** > [@](#): > > _(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; or > (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and— > (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent 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 or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or > (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is 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._ We are using definition A in this case. The conditions are just as I described them. There is no requirement for ‘providing active cover’. The conditions are ‘classified status’ and ‘overseas service’. Got it this time? You seem satisfied to debate the technicalities of the definition. I wonder what would happen if considered the spirit of that definition. > [@](#): > > I don’t mind people making mistakes but I hate when they are a prick about it. Yeah, I know the feeling. > [@](#): > > [In reference to a Fitzgerald quote regarding Libby] Now, you may wish to argue that simply having her status as “classified” is a specific effort to conceal, but the act itself makes it clear that more specific efforts are required than simply calling it classified as it makes these efforts in addition to the classified status. You are mixing your metaphors here. The first topic of discussion was the definition of ‘covert’. The second was whether Rove may be guilty of crimes. Scooter has not been a topic of conversation, at least not between you and I, so I fail to see the relevance of Fitzgerald’s comments on Libby. We are chatting about Rove. Turd Blossom. > [@](#): > > I don’t see these questions as answerable beyond speculation. Fair enough. This was just something to consider. > [@](#): > > As an interesting note, there is a USA today article. Let’s pretend that Johnson is correct and that Plame took trips abroad in 2000, 2002, and 2003 (IIRC.) > > This would be in contradiction to Wilson’s own statements. Maybe Wilson didn’t feel it was appropriate to write about trips his wife made at the request of the CIA? > [@](#): > > (note also that Plame had the aforementioned severe postpartum depression going on here, so her capacity to act covertly may not have been at an optimum) Agreed, she’s woman, presumably has PMS on occasion, and is not as ideal an operative as a man would be ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/365 "2006-09-08T01:37:40Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Bha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!! The investigation unraveled then? Really, the only thing you showed was that the defense lawyers are the biggest nincompoops for letting that clear and convincing evidence go to waste for a couple of years… Nah, more likely the idea that “neigbors knew her status” or even that “Wilson blew her cover” remains hearsay and/or irrelevant. Thank you for certifying your gullibility. [/QUOTE] You might want to check post 348. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/366 "2006-09-08T01:40:17Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Hey, you were the one who said she couldn’t have served under Rustman in the 1980s because she would have had to do that in between classes at Penn State, even though now you agree that she graduated in 1985. I can read; it seems you have the inability to read your own words. My MIL has that problem: she’s got a blind spot right in the middle of her vison. I hope your case is more treatable than hers. [/quote] :sigh: You’ve missed the point. Let’s move on. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/367 "2006-09-08T01:41:42Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] OK, so what? Again, why should I care that you’re waving your Johnson around? I’m not impressed. Somehow, the fact that there exists a guy named Johnson who’s “a total fucking nutjob” is supposed to be some strike against my argument? Wow, **Scylla**. I think you’ve lost it for good. [/QUOTE] I guess I’m the only one following the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/368 "2006-09-08T01:49:30Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Can you say “dumb as a post”? Can you recognize it in the mirror? [/quote] Who’s Johnson? > [@](#): > > If you are a CIA NOC, then when it becomes known that you work for the CIA _at all_, then your cover _as a NOC_ is blown. No more so than if you worked for the US Embassy. Nobody thought she was an agent until Wilson blew his mouth off. In fact, she was portrayed as an “analyst,” or even a glorified secretary. Wilson blew the undercover thing. No question about that, at all. > [@](#): > > The important thing isn’t _whether the general public knows_ whether you were NOC at one time; the important thing is _whether the people a NOC was trying to obtain information about_ didn’t think about her because they had no idea she was CIA. How can she be a NOC when she worked openly at a US Embassy? How can she be a NOC when she marries an ambassador? How can she be a NOC when she tells Wilson she’s an undercover agent after their first frigging kiss? > [@](#): > > Once they knew she was CIA, her effectiveness as a NOC was dead. As I’ve cited, it was dead when she worked for an embassy. It was dead when she married an ambassador. It was dead when Aldritch Ames outed her. It was practically stillborn. She spent the bulk of her career attending school. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/369 "2006-09-08T01:53:06Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] You might want to check post 348. [/QUOTE] [Pauses to grant that ineed he posted a link to the debunking… Relizes that does not change the fact he still swallowed the Newsmax BS] Bha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/370 "2006-09-08T02:01:48Z")
Oh my! 🙂 [wipes tears] Hard to type when chuckling. Yeah, that should be: [Pauses to grant that indeed he posted a link to the debunking… Realizes that that does not change the fact he still swallowed the Newsmax BS] ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/371 "2006-09-08T02:07:05Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Why would I look for the definition of ‘covert’ in section that describes the unlawful release of information? Tell you what, let’s use the correct source. **Title 50, chapter15, subchapter 4, section 426, Definitions:** We are using definition A in this case. [/quote] No we’re not. We’re using Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act]. We’re using that one because that’s the one Fitzgerald uses, and he oughtta know. That he’s using it in reference to Libby matters not at all. It would apply equally to anybody else as regards the outing of a “covert” agent. Title 18 is the statute Fitzgerald uses as germaine to the situation of determining Valerie Plame’s covert status. Unless you have a cite from a higher athority then the special prosecutor of the case, than I think it’s safe to assume that **he** is using the proper statute, not you. > [@](#): > > The conditions are just as I described them. There is no requirement for ‘providing active cover’. The conditions are ‘classified status’ and ‘overseas service’. Got it this time? I understand that you are trying to substitute another statute for the proper one that applies to this case. [quote[You seem satisfied to debate the technicalities of the definition. I wonder what would happen if considered the spirit of that definition.Yeah, I know the feeling.You are mixing your metaphors here. The first topic of discussion was the definition of ‘covert’. The second was whether Rove may be guilty of crimes. Scooter has not been a topic of conversation, at least not between you and I, so I fail to see the relevance of Fitzgerald’s comments on Libby. We are chatting about Rove. Turd Blossom.[/quote] Than you are a total moron. Fitzgeral is not arguing whether Libby is covert. He is arguing whether Plame is covert and Libby can be prosecuted for it. He cites the statute defining covert under which one could be prosecuted for it. It would apply equally to anybody else. The law does not change and you do not need a different statute for Rove than you do for Libby. Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor for this case, cites this as the proper statute for defining Plame’s covert status, and you argue with me about it? Are you all morons? I feel like I’m talking to the first grade here. First **Gigobuster** “refutes” my cite by providing the exact same cite that I provided (to show full disclosure,) and is so fucking stupid he simply repeats himself when I try to gently point it out. **RTF** Hasn’t been following the thread well enough to know that Johnson is the former CIA agent who’s claims it is argued refute Rusmans (though we’ve been talking about it for over a page) Now you, are arguing that the definition of covert as it applies to Plame is in fact a special statute that only has meaning for Libby outing her, and that Rove has his own statute. God help me, Elucidator is the brains of your bunch! Maybe Wilson didn’t feel it was appropriate to write about trips his wife made at the request of the CIA? [/quote] Well than, maybe it wasn’t appropriate to be writing OPEDs about secret missions she was involved in. Maybe it wasn’t appropriate to go claiming she was an undercover agent when all anybody knew was that she was an “analyst” at the CIA. > [@](#): > > Agreed, she’s woman, presumably has PMS on occasion, and is not as ideal an operative as a man would be I strongly disagree. Being a woman has nothing to do with it other than the gender specifity of the condition. Suggesting a woman can’t be an excellent secret agent is stupid and mysoginistic. Ever here of Scheherezade? Post partum can be a serious illness, and apparently it was for Plame. I’m only suggesting that the illness would have likely precluded activity of this nature while she was suffering it. Sheesh! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/372 "2006-09-08T02:16:23Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Oh my! 🙂 [Pauses to grant that indeed he posted a link to the debunking… Realizes that that does not change the fact he still swallowed the Newsmax BS] [/QUOTE] You’re such a dumbass. Mediamatters is as left wing as Newsmax is right. I posted both so that we might discuss them and factcheck them. I posted both because I didn’t swallow either, but want to see both sides and confirm facts and try to determine what credibility should be assigned to the claims. You post Mediamatters, which I already posted, and having a POV which agrees with you, you just accept it and stop there. You don’t even see what I’ve posted. There’s a probably apocrophyl story about the first settlers that arrived to America. The claimed the Indians never physically saw the boat the settlers arrived on. They missed it, not because it was hidden but because it was something they had no experience or concepts for. It was simply outside of their understanding, so they didn’t see it. I never really beleived that story until I watched you dimwits in action. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/373 "2006-09-08T02:18:33Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Are you all morons? I feel like I’m talking to the first grade here. First **Gigobuster** “refutes” my cite by providing the exact same cite that I provided (to show full disclosure,) and is so fucking stupid he simply repeats himself when I try to gently point it out. [/quote] Ha! 😛 What I said then was: [QUOTE=Gigobuster] The investigation unraveled then? Really, the only thing you showed was that the defense lawyers are the biggest nincompoops for letting that clear and convincing evidence go to waste for a couple of years… Nah, more likely the idea that “neigbors knew her status” or even that “Wilson blew her cover” remains hearsay and/or irrelevant. [/QUOTE] What is clear to anyone is that you still choose the BS. I’m just following common sense regarding the issue of her cover blown to neighbors, your deduction regarding the “strength” of the evidence that her cover was blown by Valerie or Wilson is hearsay. [QUOTE=Gigobuster] Thank you for certifying your gullibility. [/QUOTE] Yep, that still stands. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/374 "2006-09-08T02:30:14Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] You post Mediamatters, which I already posted, and having a POV which agrees with you, you just accept it and stop there. You don’t even see what I’ve posted. [/quote] Ho ho ho. You are the dumbass, I was begining to laugh at your newsmax link from post #339 > [@](#): > > There’s a probably apocrophyl story about the first settlers that arrived to America. The claimed the Indians never physically saw the boat the settlers arrived on. > > They missed it, not because it was hidden but because it was something they had no experience or concepts for. It was simply outside of their understanding, so they didn’t see it. > > I never really beleived that story until I watched you dimwits in action. It is apocryphal, just like your powers of deduction. For a real eye opener of what was really lost check: [1491](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491_%28book%29) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/375 "2006-09-08T03:43:22Z")
I knew I forgot why it made it funnier! [QUOTE=Scylla] Mediamatters is as left wing as Newsmax is right. I posted both so that we might discuss them and factcheck them. I posted both because I didn’t swallow either, but want to see both sides and confirm facts and try to determine what credibility should be assigned to the claims. [/QUOTE] Bull crap, those items were discussed before and me and many others concluded Newsmax was full of BS. Let us rewind: [QUOTE=Scylla] How’s [Cliff May?](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/26/112629.shtml) [/QUOTE] (Notice the lack of “I didn’t swallow” candor.) They equivocate (it is a lie based on what I learned in ethics) in the report of the Plame neighbors. Anyone that reads that and comes thinking the neighbors confirmed Plame’s outing is gullible. The report actually mentions that the neighbors interviewed were surprised about Plame’s cover. Indeed, you bringing up those misleading and then debunked pieces of “news” is done only to continue trowing sand into the umpires’ eyes like Levi did. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/376 "2006-09-08T05:42:29Z")
Let’s say I want to understand all of the levels of classification among CIA employees. I want to learn what the basic types of positions there are I want to know all of the different levels of classification, from “Not Classified at All” to “Tippy-Top Secret” (I think that’s the technical term). Because I’m after understanding, rather than just rote lists, I’m also going to want to know all of the prerequisites for any given classification to be assigned to an employee in any given position. I’m going to want to know what conditions disqualify an employee from obtaining classification at a given level, and what conditions disqualify an already-classified employee from retaining a previously-assigned classification. Only after I have mastered all of these facts, in all of their myriad permutations, will I consider myself to be approaching an understanding of who’s properly referred to as “covert”, and who isn’t. Does anyone here have any idea how I would research these questions and obtain a reliable set of data? 'Cos I’m not comfortable with accepting the notion that anyone posting to this thread has yet demonstrated actual knowledge of the issue. I have the impression of a lot of Ken Follet, and Robert Ludlum, and John LeCarre, and Trevanian, and Tom Clancy, and Brian Freemantle having been read, but nothing that strikes me as authoritative. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/377 "2006-09-08T06:06:27Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] Let’s say I want to understand all of the levels of classification among CIA employees. I want to learn what the basic types of positions there are I want to know all of the different levels of classification, from “Not Classified at All” to “Tippy-Top Secret” (I think that’s the technical term). [/quote] From Frontline PBS: > **[Readings - Human Intelligence Collection | Son Of Al Qaeda | FRONTLINE | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/readings/humint.html)** > [@](#): > > Human intelligence collection > > … > > Types of Intelligence Officers > > Since they must avoid the attention of the government in the country in which they operate, intelligence officers cannot simply hang out shingles advertising their willingness to pay cash for secrets. They require what in intelligence jargon is called “cover” – that is, a plausible reason for being in the country, visible means of financial support, a pretext for meeting people with access to sensitive information, and so forth.3 > > In current U.S. parlance, a distinction is made between "official’ and “nonofficial” cover. Official cover refers to disguising an intelligence officer as a diplomat or some other kind of governmental official who would ordinarily be posted abroad. Nonofficial cover refers to any other type of disguise – as a businessman, journalist, tourist, etc. – that could explain why the officer is in the host country. A nonofficial cover officer may also disguise his nationality and pretend to be from a country other than the one whose intelligence officer he is.4 If the host country is one that routinely accepts immigrants, the officer can enter under that guise. > > The use of official cover has several advantages. Most obviously, it can provide the intelligence officer with diplomatic immunity. If his espionage activities are detected, international law limits the host government to declaring him persona non grata and expelling him from the country. > > In addition, posting as a diplomat improves the intelligence officer’s access to some potential sources; as a diplomat, he would, without raising suspicion, meet with host-government officials in the course of his ordinary business, as well as with other countries’ diplomats stationed in the same capital. Indeed, since other countries will also use official cover for their intelligence officers, he will have “innocent” opportunities for meeting them as well.5 > > Also, stationing intelligence agents in an embassy under official cover guarantees that if a national of the host country approaches the embassy with sensitive materials of an offer to provide them, the matter can be handled by an intelligence professional. In this sense, the existence of official cover intelligence officers eases attempts by host-country nationals to make contact with the intelligence service; such positions serve as useful and perhaps necessary “mailboxes,” especially in countries that strictly regulate or prohibit their nationals’ travel to or communication with the outside world.6 > > Finally, official cover has certain administrative conveniences. The officer can be paid, and other personnel matters can be handled, through regular government channels, and secure communication with the intelligence service’s headquarters can be conveniently maintained through the intelligence “station” (the group of intelligence officers under official cover).7 > > At the same time, however, official cover has several drawbacks. Most importantly, because of the relatively small number of officials posted to a given host country, that country’s counterintelligence service may be able to determine, fairly precisely, which “diplomats” are intelligence officers and which are not. This may be done by the obvious, if laborious, methods of maintaining surveillance on each official and noting his or her movements and contacts, tapping telephones, bugging apartments, and so forth. The practice of hiring nationals of the host country to work in embassies in various support capacities probably facilitates such surveillance, especially in those countries where it must be assumed that anyone allowed to work in a foreign embassy has agreed to cooperate with the host country’s intelligence service.8 In addition, simpler and less expensive methods may be able to accomplish the same goal. For example, materials published by a country might be used to trace the careers of its foreign service officers and thus identify patterns that indicate an intelligence connection. > > Furthermore, while official cover may provide easy access to some potential sources (primarily other diplomats and officials of host-country national security bureaucracies), it may hinder access to others who might be hesitant to deal with foreign officials, either in general or with those from a particular country. In any case, potential recruits are immediately put on notice that they are dealing with an official of a foreign government, and that may make them more cautious. In addition, if diplomatic relations are broken off, as might happen in case of an intense crisis or war – when good intelligence may be most necessary – official-cover officers must leave the country, thereby disrupting the operation of any networks of sources they had established.9 > > The advantages and disadvantages of nonofficial cover are, for the most part, the obverse of the considerations already discussed. on the one hand, since they pose as members of a variety of professions and strata of society, nonofficial-cover officials (NOCs) can have access to a different, and perhaps wider, spectrum of potential sources. Similarly, they can pose as (or, indeed, be) nationals of the country to which they are posted or of some third country. Obscuring the connection with the government for which they work may help them make contact with potential sources and gain access to information. If diplomatic relations are broken off, they may be able to remain and continue to operate. In general, NOCs should also be much harder for the host government to identify. > > On the other hand, nonofficial cover suffers from many disadvantages. The expense and administrative difficulty involved in providing nonofficial cover is much greater than in the case of official cover. One method is to persuade a corporation or other private organization to allow an intelligence officer to pose as a member of its staff. Alternatively, the officers may themselves establish businesses or engage in activities that provide plausible explanations for their presence in the target country. The drawback here is that this may not only be expensive but require the intelligence officer to devote a great deal of time to his or her “cover” activity if the cover is to be persuasive, which reduces the time and effort the officer can spend on the primary task of intelligence collection.10 Communications are likely to be more difficult, since an NOC cannot make regular use of the embassy’s communications facilities without raising some of the very suspicions that nonofficial cover is intended to avoid. > > One well-known and particularly successful NOC was Richard Sorge, a German citizen and correspondent for a leading German newspaper who spied for Soviet military intelligence in China and Japan from the 1930s until his arrest in the fall of 1941. His close relationship with the staff of the German embassy in Tokyo, including the ambassador, gave him extraordinary access to information about German and Japanese war plans. Shortly before his arrest, Sorge reported to Moscow the critical information that “the Soviet Far East can be considered safe from Japanese attack.” According to Sorge’s report, Japan had decided not to attack the Soviet Union; instead it would strike south and east in the Pacific against the United States and the British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia. Reassured by Sorge’s reporting, Stalin felt free to transfer hundreds of thousands of troops from the Far East to Moscow, where they would help stop the German advance in the winter of 1941-42. In retrospect, halting the Wehrmacht outside Moscow was to be a critical turning point in the war.11 > > … More info in the link. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/378 "2006-09-08T14:47:11Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] No we’re not. We’re using Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act]. We’re using that one because that’s the one Fitzgerald uses, and he oughtta know. [/quote] Title 50, Section 421 is another section from the same United States Code. It’s disingenuous to assume that because you can’t find Fitzgerald quoting it on Fox and Friends, that it isn’t relevant, or hasn’t been considered. Note it includes a definition for a term used throughout the USC. It isn’t a statute that can be violated or would appear in an indictment, it’s a supporting clause that is necessary to properly understand the term “covert” as it appears in Title 18 and other sections of the USC. Section 421 is widely discussed by experts on both sides of the issue, give it a google if you doubt me. > [@](#): > > That he’s using it in reference to Libby matters not at all. Of course it does. Libby’s actions are not necessarily the same as Rove’s – they aren’t co-defendants. Measuring Libby’s actions against the relevant statutes has no bearing on how Rove’s actions will measure against a set of statutes that could differ significantly. This parallelism you attempt to assign is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Unless you have a cite from a higher athority then the special prosecutor of the case, than I think it’s safe to assume that **he** is using the proper statute, not you. Rather than make a fallacious deferral to authority, would you like to retract this statement and form an argument? > [@](#): > > Than you are a total moron. Fitzgeral is not arguing whether Libby is covert. 😕 Could you point to the where I stated that _Libby’s covert status_ [?] was relevant? I seem to remember stating that I’d focus any discussion on Rove, and his alleged crimes. Let’s add one more concept here. Let’s pretend for a moment that Plame was not a covert agent (I do not concede the point, so please don’t play semantics games), and she had been stateside enjoying domestic life for 6 years. Her status with her employer, the CIA, was no more or less than “classified” as I believe you have agreed earlier in this thread. Rove committed no crime, per se, by confirming her relationship to the CIA. Did Rove act morally, ethically, and in the best interest of his country when he leaked classified information? Would you expect a high ranking official to out someone who still had the status of a covert agent 1 year prior? If _you_ were king, would you continue to employ such a person? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/379 "2006-09-08T15:50:03Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] :sigh: You’ve missed the point. Let’s move on. [/QUOTE] The point, or at least _my_ point, was about Rustman’s questionable relevance and veracity as a witness. He was Plame’s boss for about a year in the 1980s, but we know of no futher professional relationship between the two. If you’re moving on, I presume we can include this in the Findings of Fact, as the lawyers would say. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737/380 "2006-09-08T15:54:12Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] I guess I’m the only one following the thread. [/QUOTE] I’m reading my posts and your responses, and posts by others that seem to bear on this exchange. That should suffice. You brought up Johnson, without any indication of who he was, or how he was relevant to our discussion. But apparently he’s a nutcase, and that fact, you imply, somehow weakens my arguments, despite my not relying on the existence of anyone named Johnson. That is of course ridiculous. If you’ve got a case to make, make it. If not, don’t bring in junk and pretend it should mean something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wherein-scylla-admonishes-the-left-wing-for-casting-plame-upon-rove/370737.md?page=20)