Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
If she was covert under the meaning of 50 USC 421, which you say the indictment asserts (but note, the indictment offers no additional support for the assertion as you take it)

You're confused, I never said she was "covert". In fact I've been saying quite the opposite, that she wasn't (but may be now if she's stil employed by CIA).

Furthermore (and solely as a technical matter), there will never be any further proof or validation of her "classified" status, precisely because her status is and was classified. And that's not a tautology, either: "classfied" means "classified", and not subject to public scrutiny.

You're also getting confused by reading the U.S. Code on this matter.

Two conditions drive the legal definition of "covert" status: (1) a "classified" intellegence position, irrespective of the actual job duties (e.g., your file or assignment is properly marked Secret or Top Secret or whatever); and (2) foreign service in the last five years. Period.

You should read the entire Intelligence Identities Protection Act rather than parsing and inferring from the U.S. Code.

74 posted on 10/29/2005 5:05:50 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: angkor
You're confused, I never said she was "covert". In fact I've been saying quite the opposite, that she wasn't (but may be now if she's stil employed by CIA).

Yes, I read on in the post I replied to, and think we are more or less on the same page.

Two conditions drive the legal definition of "covert" status: (1) a "classified" intellegence position, irrespective of the actual job duties (e.g., your file or assignment is properly marked Secret or Top Secret or whatever); and (2) foreign service in the last five years. Period.

The way I read the indictment, it does not probe Plame's status withing the CIA whatsoever. The way I read it, it does not assert that she holds a position that is "classified," under the meaning of the Act. Her identity as a MEMBER or EMPLOYEE of the CIA is not classified information. Her employment status within the CIA is classified, but the indictment does not allege that her being an employee or memeber of the CIA is classified.

You should read the entire Intelligence Identities Protection Act rather than parsing and inferring from the U.S. Code.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act -IS- the US Code. Here is a part of the definition section of 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.

50 USC 426


86 posted on 10/29/2005 5:24:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson