Posted on 07/15/2005 8:37:10 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
50 USC 426:
(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.
So you've got to have either:
(4)(A) + (4)(A)(i) + (4)(A)(ii) All three must be true
(4)(B) + (4)(B)(i) Both must be true
(4)(B) + (4)(B)(ii) Both must be true
(4)(C) Only applies to non-US citizens.
And the facts are out there.
The Vanity Fair piece on the Wilsons states that Plame last served outside the US in 1997, which is six years before the Novak article, which makes (4)(A)(ii) false.
So much for A.
Plame does not reside and act outside of the US, which makes (4)(B)(i) false.
Plame neither worked for nor was an informant for FBI counterterrorism/counterintelligence, which makes (4)(B)(ii) false.
So much for B.
Plame is a U.S. citizen, which makes (4)(c) false.
So much for C.
Going, going, gone.
So how is there a violation of the law when she does not meet the definition of "covert agent"?
The question is when "Valerie Plame" or "Valerie Wilson", whatever she used, became known as a 'CIA Agent' as opposed to an employee of Brewster-Jennings.
The fact that she may have - I emphasize may have, because I'm guessing neither you nor I know anything about her daily pattern of going to and from work - appeared to be overtly working for the CIA in 2003 is not even the issue.
Now, everyone knows that PRIOR TO her working 'overtly,' if she was, for the CIA, she was working under NOC for Brewster-Jennings. That is not known simply because she NOW overtly works for the CIA. Not everyone who works for the CIA has always worked there. Now everyone knows that she used to be NOC, and that her 'employer' at that time was a front company, and that this company's other employees and contacts were involved in Agency business.
I don't care how much anyone wants to spin it, and I don't care much whether that is a violation of the statute - it is not, under any scenario, a good thing to have happen.
Excellent summary:
" heard on TV yesterday that to be in violation of the law (the 1982 law that Sen. Schumer voted AGAINST), among other things,
(1) The accused must have gotten the info from a confidential source,
(2) The accused must KNOW that the agent is clandestine,
(3) The exposed agent must be serving overseas, and undercover, or must have served in this capacity within 5 years of the exposure.
Wilson and wifey both admit that no element of #3 was in place. The exposure took place in 2003, and Plame's last overseas posting was in 1997. Besides, at CIA in 2003 she was simply working as a regular staffer...not in a clandestine role.
The Dems need to sit down abd shut up.
That Plame was well known in the DC cocktail circuits to be CIA has been well known for YEARS. Just about the first story I ever saw about Plame/Wilson so very long ago made it clear that everyone knew her connections with the agency. Only the Old Media FRAUDcasters have been attempting to keep this fact from the public.
Novak could have gotten her name from many people who had zero "insider information" from my understanding.
Surprising? Not at all, when we recall that WILSON HIMSELF says she revealed herself as CIA agent on one of their first dates!
Valerie was not a person, apparently, who held that information in high confidence.
I've heard this claim made, which I find just slightly odd when one considers that an insider like Novak didn't know. And that Rove didn't know.
But my real question is this: I've heard a number of people make general comments like the one Andrea Mitchell made the other day, along the lines of "it was no secret." Have you heard anyone not with the Agency - reporter or not - say that before the Novak column, "I knew" she was with the CIA?
LOL!
You're not serious, right?
October 19, 2003
THE PLAME AFFAIR: HOW MUCH DAMAGE?....Time magazine keeps us up to date on the potential damage from the exposure of Valerie Plame:
Officials with two foreign governments told Time that their spy catchers are quietly checking on whether Plame had worked on their soil and, if so, what she had done there. Which means if one theme of the Administration leak scandal concerns political vengeance — did the White House reveal Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson for his public criticism of the case for war with Iraq? — another theme is about damage. What has been lost, and who has been compromised because of the leak of one spy's name? And who, if anyone, will pay for that disclosure?
And how secret was Plame's CIA role? Apparently she was an undercover NOC (non-official cover), but not a deep undercover NOC:
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.
....Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.
October 19, 2003
THE PLAME AFFAIR: HOW MUCH DAMAGE?....Time magazine keeps us up to date on the potential damage from the exposure of Valerie Plame:
Officials with two foreign governments told Time that their spy catchers are quietly checking on whether Plame had worked on their soil and, if so, what she had done there. Which means if one theme of the Administration leak scandal concerns political vengeance — did the White House reveal Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson for his public criticism of the case for war with Iraq? — another theme is about damage. What has been lost, and who has been compromised because of the leak of one spy's name? And who, if anyone, will pay for that disclosure?
And how secret was Plame's CIA role? Apparently she was an undercover NOC (non-official cover), but not a deep undercover NOC:
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.
....Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.
From DU...
I may offend some with this. If so, I'm sorry. But the more I see of this Rove thing, the more I think he's once again throwing his rubbing his hands together, throwing his head back, and laughing like a maniac.
Let's think about this for a minute.... If he had this innocence that they are now saying is slowly coming out, why wasn't this all taken care of months ago? My theory is that Rove knew he could get the dems whipped up in a frenzy, and it worked. As much as I'd like to see him go, I think the Dems up there calling for revocation of security clearance are eventually going to look foolish.
So Rove wins this game again. Let's face it, he's damn good at it. I feel pretty certain he was behind the national guard story. You have to admit it worked. Not only did it hurt Kerry, it completely destroyed Dan Rather and made even more people believe the myth of the "liberal media." Not a bad move.
Now, why would Rove do all this now? I know, the prosecutor has a lot of control on the timeline, but doesn't it seem odd that the whole firestorm erupts just as the DSM story was getting legs?
Does anybody agree with me on this?
Now you're talking!!!!
Ah, I just get too much pleasure out of this. I don't know where they find those spineless Repubs in Congress because I would keep kicking until I was certain this party could never pick the remnants up off the floor.
Are Joe Wilson's lies catching up with him. Is there in fact an investigation focused on Joe Wilson and Joe's been trying to weasel his way out?
Since the dems have "outed" themselves as the liars and hype-based theorists, Bush should announce a real conservative nominee and state that since the democrats are unable to separate facts from fiction, he's sending up his nominee who has been fully vetted and ready to confirm by the 51 majority senate.
BTW, how long has Andrea been a bulemic?
Talk about conspiracy theorists... My head is ready to explode after reading that nonsense. I see that some of them are still ranting about "Fixed voting machines", "Stealing votes", etc.
I'd say that these people should get a life, but maybe we're better off with them right where they are- Over in DUmmie land, ranting, raving, & drooling on themselves.
LC
In a perfect world, he would nominate Janice Rogers-Brown and then sit back and watch the right melt.
How could they in good conscious say she doesn't qualify for SC when they just ok'd her?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.