Final Proof That Plame's Identity Wasn't Secret

Right on the Right ^ | 4-19-06 | RealTeen

[RealTeen]

A critic of mine tried to say that the recently released memos which showed no indication of Plame's identity being secret were actually marked secret. You can read our entire exchange HERE, and I figured I'd break down the evidence. First off, let's look at THE PICTURE of the memo:

What you'll notice, and what the Left is trying to point out, is that the memo has the word Secret on it. It says UNCLASSIFIED at the top, but that designation was given to it recently. With all this shown, you would assume the entire memo was classified when this information was released. That's simply not so. Right under the word secret, you'll see the abbreviation DECL, which was on this original document in 2003. If you look this up in the military dictionary, you'll see the following definition:

declassify- To cancel the security classification of an item of classified matter. Also called DECL.

What does this say? This memo, which talks of Valerie Plame's identity, was declassified BEFORE any leak in 2003, thus there was NO illegal activity. If that isn't enough, I researched the type of declassification this was, and found the following:

1.6 X 1: Reveal an intelligence source, method or activity, or a cryptologic system or activity

You will notice from the picture, that this is a 1.6 X 1 type of declassification. This actually means that the information was purposely declassified so that this intelligence source, method, or activity information would be available. Valerie Plame wasn't covert, or else this would have STAYED secret.

[darkwing104]

Here is some good info...

Missing the Big Story: The CIA's War with the White House

[darkwing104]

I still think this evidence helps make the case that Plame wasn't covert, or certain declassifcation standards wouldn't have been in place.

Now you are on the right path...Go get'em.

P.S. I am a retired Military Intelligence Analyst.

[RealTeen]

Well, thank you guys. As I said, I updated my site with further info on this, and how it assists to prove that Plame wasn't covert.

[samiam230]

Sometimes, I am utterly amazed at things people post on FR. The document clearly states "(S/NF)" before the paragraph that lists Valeria Wilson as a "CIA WMD Manager." Try "SECRET/NONFORN." Or that the information herein is secret and can't be released to non-U.S. nationals. The posted document is PROOF that Valeria Plame's CIA status was indeed SECRET.
see descriptions at each of these links:
S/NF
Secret/NONFORN
see section entitled "Positive Evidence..."
Only U.S. Citizens with Appropriate Clearance

[jimtorr]

The notation "Decl: 1.6x1" means that this document is exempt from the normal 10 years downgrading given to Secret material, for reasons dealing with "Intelligence Sources and Methods".

The memo is not marked correctly, by the way, which is what leads to RealTeen's confusion. It looks to me as if the author, Mr. Ford, was trying really hard to keep the memo to just one page.

It was released on 31 Mar 2006 by Dept. of State classification authority Sharon Ahmad after all classified material was removed.

It is correct that anything remaining in this memo is considered Unclassified by State Dept. Including that in 2003 Valerie Plame worked worked as a CIA WMD Director.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[jimtorr]

The posted document is PROOF that Valeria Plame's CIA status was indeed SECRET.

No, it is not. The classified material is what was redacted. What remains is now and was in 2003 unclassified.

If Plames employer was secret in 2003, then by law it would be secret today. The classification authority at State Dept. noted at the bottom left of the memo says that the memo in unclassified. Go argue with her.

[darkwing104]

The portion of the document that was S/NF have been whited out. The Rest is unclassified.

The ability to see certain document regardless of classification is based on a need to know basis, not solely on the classification itself.

[gondramB]

>>Sometimes, I am utterly amazed at things people post on FR. The document clearly states "(S/NF)" before the paragraph that lists Valeria Wilson as a "CIA WMD Manager." Try "SECRET/NONFORN." Or that the information herein is secret and can't be released to non-U.S. nationals. The posted document is PROOF that Valeria Plame's CIA status was indeed SECRET.
see descriptions at each of these links: <<

This is way outside any area of my expertise thanks for the input. What does NONFORN mean from a practical point of view- that its ok to release to Americans? Is "secret" in this context the same as classified? What about the dates - is there information there about the order in which her identity and this document were declassified?

[fish hawk]

You have energy! Keep up the good works, it is appreciated. Aloha

[tobyhill]

It's very simple, they redacted the parts they wanted to remain classified and declassified the parts they wanted to. This administration has every right to defend themselves from misleading attacks.

[Wristpin]

Or it could mean that the whole Niger/Uranium matter was Secret/NOFORN and Joe Wilson's OPED pieces illegally leaked it.

[norwaypinesavage]

Do you recognize that this document appears to have been written in 2003 on an IBM Selectric Typewriter. It was probably stolen from the Texas Air National Guard. This could present a great opportunity to check out superscript typing.

[norwaypinesavage]

"you can get in trouble for lying about something that wasn't illegal"

Yes, but can't be prosecuted for lying about something that is not pertinent to the crime being investigated. If there is no crime, their is no possibility of prosecution for lying to cover it up.

[gondramB]

"Yes, but can't be prosecuted for lying about something that is not pertinent to the crime being investigated. If there is no crime, their is no possibility of prosecution for lying to cover it up."

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure I've seen people prosecuted for lying to police officers about who they were even though they weren't guilty of anything else.

[samiam230]

The section marked S//NF is the entire paragraph, not just the whited-out (redacted) portion.

Read the paragraph again:

(S//NF)(Redacted). In a February 19, 2002 meeting convened by Valeria Wilson, a CIA WMD Manager, and the wife of Joe Wilson, he previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger. (Redacted) Both the memo of this meeting prepared by INR's West Africa analyst (now (redacted)) and other material indicate that the CIA believed... (end of page)

[norwaypinesavage]

"Are you sure about that?"

I'm going by what others have said on this forum, in other threads. As I understand what has been said by several seemingly knowledgeable individuals, you can't be convicted of lying for covering up a crime that didn't happen. On the other hand, in the situation you mentioned, I believe it would be a crime to misrepresent yourself to an investigator, regardless of any relevance to a crime.

[darkwing104]

What myself and a few others where trying to tell you is that the redacted portion made it S/NF, the rest of the paragraph wasn't S/NF....The only why it was that way because it identified an INR Staff member. The rest of the paragraph is basically background information and thus unclassified.

[tobyhill]

Is this the same report the MSM was claiming the small s in parenthesis was directly by her name?

[darkwing104]

Probably, The MSM will take advantage of people's ignorance to get their biases out there. From what I see in this report her assignment was not classified. Thus no leaks.