Posted on 10/25/2005 4:21:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Joe Wilson was given far too much latitude..
So much so, in fact, that it would outwardly appear to be not only condoned, but encouraged..
That would, in itself, suggest that it was planned..
What about Curt Weldon?
Tis time, tis past time to sweep anew...
That's because the Agency did not require Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement. The Agency paid for Wilson's trip to Niger and he reported first back to them. The question is whether Wilson ever cleared his editorial with the Agency to ensure that he was not divulging any classified information.
Wilson is not the only example of Angency-sanctioned rogue behavior. They allowed Michael Scheuer's anonymous publication of a book, Imperial Hubris, in July 2004. The book was clearly written to have an impact on the 2004 elections.
Current and former CIA employees who write for publication (books, articles, novels, letters to the editor) must submit to the agency for pre-publication approval anything that might touch on agency business.
John Hollister Hedley, who chaired the CIA's Publications Review Board for three years in the late '90s, writes in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence that tougher restrictions apply to current CIA employees than former ones. The PRB will block former employees from disclosing classified information that might damage national security, but as a matter of policy it doesn't throttle opinions that may cause the agency discomfort or embarrassment. A tougher three-part test exists for current employees. The agency can "deny permission to publish statements or opinions that could impair the author's performance of duties, interfere with the authorized functions of the Agency, or have an adverse impact on US foreign relations," Hedley writes. Surely Scheuer's forceful opinions in Imperial Hubris trigger one or two of these three trip-wires,
Or maybe spend some time at the range.
LOL. . .but not a bad idea. . .;^)
I agree wholeheartedly.
The real subversives in this mess are the CIA cabal seeking to bring down a President of the United States along with the democrat party and the media.
Call for an investigation of these subversive plots - they are as least as important as who leaked the identity of an undercover agent who was no longer undercover and who was outed by her own husband's need for attention.
Who gives the CIA renegades the right to plot against a President in the time of war and decisions of war?
It will be really revealing if, during all of this hoopla, this cabal is not deemed worthy of investigation as their efforts are legal while a faulty memory is deemed worthy of indictment.
bttt
"His, "just can't we get along" attitude has backfired on him."
It can't be backfiring if that was the original intention.
During the run-up to the war, I noticed so many anonymous sources from both the cia and state, that it nearly drove me nuts. "What is going on here!" There was an on-going war of leaks between CIA and State against DOD and NSC.
I truly hope that Rove especially, and Scooter are not indicted!
We should begin by investigating the CIA!
Ping
They must submit anything they write, whether it has agency business in it or not, but the CIA can only check content for classified information. It can't change things that are lies, opinion, or factually incorrect. That is not CIA internal rules that apply, but law. Scheurer wrote a dumb book which was clearly the work of one of those "if only they had listened to me types." He submitted it and it was reviewed for disclosure of classified information and may or may not have been edited accordingly. Wilson was a private citizen and was asked to go on a public mission. A confidentiality agreement would have been incredibly unusual under the circumstances. You can't ask someone to sign a confidentiality agreement on information that is not yet even known. A confidentiality agreement is a document you sign based on information you are going to be given at that moment, or have already been given. What part of his visit would have been considered confidential and which part public? Talk about a legal morass. Wilson is a flaming idiot and the people who decided to send him on that fact finding mission were idiots, but I think it was the usual bad judgement call and not something sinister.
The CIA had absolutely no right to ask a private citizen to sign a non-disclosure agreement on things that are not classified. No part of what he gathered on his mission was classified. Had he been a paid employee of the CIA or the US Government he would not have been allowed to divulge anything he collected because it essentially would belong to the USG. He was a private citizen and doesn't fall under those rules. He is an idiot and the Agency was stupid for sending him, but I doubt it was a sinister plot.
You are referring to I.F. (IZZY) Stone. I don't get your point.
The CIA paid for his trip, so yes, they had every right to require a NDA as they normally do when they send someone to get intelligence (sources and methods). And the very fact that the CIA was using a former Ambassador to investigate Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium should have been classified if it was not.
Agreed, but it is confined only to those for publication.
Wilson was a private citizen and was asked to go on a public mission. A confidentiality agreement would have been incredibly unusual under the circumstances. You can't ask someone to sign a confidentiality agreement on information that is not yet even known. A confidentiality agreement is a document you sign based on information you are going to be given at that moment, or have already been given. What part of his visit would have been considered confidential and which part public?
Perhaps it is a matter of terminology, but I have signed agreements associated with various security clearances that would essentially allow the USG to put me in jail and throw the key away. I signed those agreements without accessing the information first.
Wilson claims his trip was a public one, but he was briefed by the Agency and others prior to undertaking the trip and debriefed when he returned. The Agency was paying his expenses. I would think that the Agency would not want any part of the the trip and its results made public. Nor would the Agency want it known that they were associated with it. DeGenova is the one who raised the lack of a confidentiality agreement as being unusual. I think he knows what he is talking about.
"Who will dare take them on in future if WH figures are indicted? Scary stuff."
Scary indeed. It short circuits democracy. I wonder to what degree it is true.
In such a scenario, if I were the Pres., I would have no compunction about locating the transgressors and killing them.
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.