Judge Dismisses former CIA Operative Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Against

[red states rule]

The facts speak for themselves. When the Associate Deputy Director of the directorate of the CIA that Plame was a part of is considered "undercover" and her identity kept secret it is obvious to everyone that her subordinates are also covert agents. That you do not want to admit that Plame worked in what we now refer to as the National Clandestine Service is a problem that you have which is that you don't want to admit the truth or accept the facts and the facts are ample to demonstrate that she was a covert agent which include the statement of the Director of the CIA that she was a covert agent. Of course, you know full well that the CIA will not provide a jury with a detailed account of her work at the CIA in order to gain a conviction. The CIA would whether see the guilty go free before they cause further harm to our country as a result of the harm the administration did to our country when they revealed Plame's covert status. I suspect that we may find out in 10 to 20 years that Plame was an Associate Deputy Director of Counter-proliferation. But, that will be for history to tell since the CIA wouldn't want to release that information now. I have asked myself why the CIA reacted so quickly and harshly in the case of Valarie Plame. It's not like the covert status of CIA agents hadn't been revealed in the past. How was this action different from the others? It leads me to believe that we have watched the fall of one of the highest ranking members of the CIA community.

To bad for you, she does not fit the legal requirement ot be "covert"

 

[red states rule]

I think the reason no one was charged might be much simpler than that. Fitzgerald was a dedicated prosecutor, and I don't believe that there is no means to effectuate the statute because of security issues. Maybe I am wrong, but the following seesm more likely to me.

Prosecutorial Discretion. To convict, you would have to demonstrate specific intent, and prove beyound a reasonsable doubt that she was covert (not based upon the opinion of Dir. of CIA, but based upon language of statute). This is a pretty steep standard of proof, and my guess is that Fitzgerald believed it would be too difficult to prove.

Perhaps no law was broken?

 

[ReillyT]

To bad for you, she does not fit the legal requirement ot be "covert"

RSR... don't pretend that you know that to be the case. Nobody (or at least nobody here) knows the answer to that question. There is considerable evidence to suggest that she was "covert," although (once again) nobody really knows (although I am guessing Fitzgerald has on opinion)

Perhaps no law was broken?

That is possible as well.

 

[Edward]

She did not fit the law that would have made her covert

Libs were blaming Novack for leaking her ID - turns out he did not

According to her testimony before the House she did in fact meet those conditions including having worked outside the United States within the previous five years from the time she gave her testimony. It seems to me that you want to ignore the facts instead of accepting that Valarie Plame fitted the law but putting that aside. It's not the law that "made her covert" instead the law clarified when someone could be prosecuted for releasing the covert status of a covert agent. Not meeting the conditions of the law does not negate the fact that she functioned in a covert role at the CIA. The law doesn't define the word covert instead the word covert is used to explain the law. I suggest you use some common sense before making a stupid claim that "she did not fit the law that would have made her covert" since the law isn't what made her covert. The law only defines when a person can be prosecuted for releasing the identity of a covert agent.

 

[red states rule]

RSR... don't pretend that you know that to be the case. Nobody (or at least nobody here) knows the answer to that question. There is considerable evidence to suggest that she was "covert," although (once again) nobody really knows (although I am guessing Fitzgerald has on opinion)



That is possible as well.

Not according to the law that was written to protect covert agents

I find it funny libs rant over a non issue but support the NY Times and the rest of the liberal media for leaking covert operations that the goverment is using to find, arrest, and kill terrorists

 

[red states rule]

According to her testimony before the House she did in fact meet those conditions including having worked outside the United States within the previous five years from the time she gave her testimony. It seems to me that you want to ignore the facts instead of accepting that Valarie Plame fitted the law but putting that aside. It's not the law that "made her covert" instead the law clarified when someone could be prosecuted for releasing the covert status of a covert agent. Not meeting the conditions of the law does not negate the fact that she functioned in a covert role at the CIA. The law doesn't define the word covert instead the word covert is used to explain the law. I suggest you use some common sense before making a stupid claim that "she did not fit the law that would have made her covert" since the law isn't what made her covert. The law only defines when a person can be prosecuted for releasing the identity of a covert agent.

Not per the lawyers who wrote the law

 

[ReillyT]

According to her testimony before the House she did in fact meet those conditions including having worked outside the United States within the previous five years from the time she gave her testimony. It seems to me that you want to ignore the facts instead of accepting that Valarie Plame fitted the law but putting that aside. It's not the law that "made her covert" instead the law clarified when someone could be prosecuted for releasing the covert status of a covert agent. Not meeting the conditions of the law does not negate the fact that she functioned in a covert role at the CIA. The law doesn't define the word covert instead the word covert is used to explain the law. I suggest you use some common sense before making a stupid claim that "she did not fit the law that would have made her covert" since the law isn't what made her covert. The law only defines when a person can be prosecuted for releasing the identity of a covert agent.

Is the word "covert" actually used in the statute? Is it defined? Or is "covert" just the shorthand public term for the conditions described in the statute?

 

[red states rule]

Is the word "covert" actually used in the statute? Is it defined? Or is "covert" just the shorthand public term for the conditions described in the statute?

and you say Novak is not a credible source - now you are asking Eddie?

 

[Edward]

To bad for you, she does not fit the legal requirement ot be "covert"

The only reason you can make this claim even though it contradicts the testimony and statements of Plame, the Director of the CIA and common sense (i.e., someone who worked for the covert arm of the CIA was most likely covert) is because you know full well that the CIA isn't going to release a detailed 5 year history of Plame's activities with the CIA. Since you require a higher burden then what would be taken to convict most people of murder or other crimes I think I can rest my case with you being an idiot. Of course the CIA can come forward and say: "Valarie Plame is correct in saying that she traveled oversees on foreign assignments and she specifically traveled to X country and performed X tasks for the CIA." I can just imagine the field day that those who were the targets of these actitivities would have or the amount of money a member of the jury could get selling this information to another country or organization. At some point we must accept both common sense and the statements of the Director of the CIA as being correct.

 

[ReillyT]

Not according to the law that was written to protect covert agents

I love you RSR, but even if you are right that she would not have been classified as a "covert" agent under the law (and I don't know that you are), I think you are only right by accident. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I find it funny libs rant over a non issue but support the NY Times and the rest of the liberal media for leaking covert operations that the goverment is using to find, arrest, and kill terrorists

First, one "leak" may have been illegal and the other clearly was not.

Also, the domestic spying program was illegal (almost certainly) and so does take on the mantle of real news.

 

[red states rule]

The only reason you can make this claim even though it contradicts the testimony and statements of Plame, the Director of the CIA and common sense (i.e., someone who worked for the covert arm of the CIA was most likely covert) is because you know full well that the CIA isn't going to release a detailed 5 year history of Plame's activities with the CIA. Since you require a higher burden then what would be taken to convict most people of murder or other crimes I think I can rest my case with you being an idiot. Of course the CIA can come forward and say: "Valarie Plame is correct in saying that she traveled oversees on foreign assignments and she specifically traveled to X country and performed X tasks for the CIA." I can just imagine the field day that those who were the targets of these actitivities would have or the amount of money a member of the jury could get selling this information to another country or organization. At some point we must accept both common sense and the statements of the Director of the CIA as being correct.

No, the lawyers who wrote the law say she is not covert per the law

 

[red states rule]

I love you RSR, but even if you are right that she would not have been classified as a "covert" agent under the law (and I don't know that you are), I think you are only right by accident. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.



First, one "leak" may have been illegal and the other clearly was not.

Also, the domestic spying program was illegal (almost certainly) and so does take on the mantle of real news.

If the leak goes with the libs desire to undermine the war - it is fine

Libs do have selective outrages

 

[ReillyT]

If the leak goes with the libs desire to undermine the war - it is fine

Libs do have selective outrages

D'accord.

 

[Edward]

Is the word "covert" actually used in the statute? Is it defined? Or is "covert" just the shorthand public term for the conditions described in the statute?

Here is a link to the text of the law so you can read it for yourself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

It is defined here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

 

[Edward]

No, the lawyers who wrote the law say she is not covert per the law

I don't care what the opinions of one individual is who helped in the drafting of the law since they aren't the only ones who drafted it and they weren't the ones who voted for it. There are a lot of people who get off on thinking of themselves as experts on the law because they helped to write it but doing so does not make on an expert under the law. Also, there is absolutely no way for these lawyers can "say she is not covert per the law" since they do not have access to her work history at the CIA. They can explain the law but that isn't what happened here instead the bitch who helped to write the law took it upon herself to argue with current members of Congress and to make statements about how Plame wasn't covert under the law even though the testimony by plame before would indicate otherwise. For example, her testimony that she had in fact served outside the United States within the previous five years.

 

[red states rule]

(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


Right there makes Plame NOT A COVERT agent

 

[CockySOB]

I think the reason no one was charged might be much simpler than that. Fitzgerald was a dedicated prosecutor, and I don't believe that there is no means to effectuate the statute because of security issues. Maybe I am wrong, but the following seesm more likely to me.

Prosecutorial Discretion. To convict, you would have to demonstrate specific intent, and prove beyound a reasonsable doubt that she was covert (not based upon the opinion of Dir. of CIA, but based upon language of statute). This is a pretty steep standard of proof, and my guess is that Fitzgerald believed it would be too difficult to prove.

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. You and I seem to be of the same mind on the subject. The only real problem I had with Fitzgerald is how he avoided proving Plame was covert per the statutes in the Libby trial, yet brought it back up during sentencing whilst at the same time claiming that Libby should only be sentenced for the crimes he was convicted of.

Personally, I'd like to see Plame charged with perjury and the like for her contradictory statements before Congress regarding her role in sending Joe to Niger. But I doubt the Democrat majority or Reid will allow that to happen as doing could be devastating to their main political tool - the war.

 

[ReillyT]

Here is a link to the text of the law so you can read it for yourself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

It is defined here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

Thanks. I hadn't previously read the statute. It certainly does appear that she fits the definition of "covert agent." I guess the only other question is whether (a) her identity was classified (almost surely); and (b) was the government "taking affirmative steps to to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." I am inclined to believe that this is the case.

RSR, I am off the fence. She does appear to have been a "covert agent" under the law. I encourage you to look at the statute yourself.

Thanks again Edward.

 

[red states rule]

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. You and I seem to be of the same mind on the subject. The only real problem I had with Fitzgerald is how he avoided proving Plame was covert per the statutes in the Libby trial, yet brought it back up during sentencing whilst at the same time claiming that Libby should only be sentenced for the crimes he was convicted of.

Personally, I'd like to see Plame charged with perjury and the like for her contradictory statements before Congress regarding her role in sending Joe to Niger. But I doubt the Democrat majority or Reid will allow that to happen as doing could be devastating to their main political tool - the war.

Being charged with perjry would be a great chapter in her book she wants to publish

The CIA says no - so much for her being worried about her covert cover being blown

 

[Edward]

I love you RSR, but even if you are right that she would not have been classified as a "covert" agent under the law (and I don't know that you are), I think you are only right by accident. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Here are the words of Plame. It is clear that she has stated and the Director of the CIA believes she was a covert agent under the law. They have the CIA backed into a corner where they either release classified information to prove that Plame was a covert agent or they say: "ah ha, there isn't any proof that she ever went overseas and Plame and the Director of the CIA are liars."

CUMMINGS: Ms. Wilson, even today your work for the CIA is so highly classified that we're not permitted to discuss the details, but we can clarify one crucial point: whether you worked undercover for the CIA. You said that your position was covert, but I've heard others say that you were not covert. In fact, one of the witnesses who will testify a little bit later, Victoria Toensing, is making that same argument. In an op-ed that appeared in The Washington Post on February 18th, she says it quite bluntly. She says, quote, "Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years." End of quote. I know there are restrictions on what you can say today, but is Ms. Toensing's statement correct?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Congressman, thank you for the opportunity. I know I'm here under oath and I'm here to say that I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for a temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert.

REP. CUMMINGS: Is it possible that Ms. Toensing had more information than you do about your work or had access to secret documents that you don't?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I would find that highly unlikely, Congressman, because much of that information about my career is still classified.

REP. CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Chairman Waxman told me that General Hayden said clearly and directly, quote, "Ms. Wilson was covert," end of quote. There was no doubt about it. And by the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that.

In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it he said, quote, "Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA," end of quote. Quote, "Ms. Wilson was undercover," end of quote. The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that -- that what seems absolutely clear isn't really true, and that you weren't covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn't any ambiguity on this point.

Just three more questions. Do you hold this covert status at the time of the leak -- did you -- the covert status at the time of the leak?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, I did, Congressman. Yes.

REP. CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question -- again, we don't want classified information, dates, locations or any other details -- during the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, I did, Congressman.

REP. CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today you went on secret missions outside the United States, is that correct?

MS. PLAME WILSON: That is correct, Congressman.

REP. CUMMINGS: I want to thank you, and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert -- of whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.