Posted on 10/17/2005 7:25:22 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
Despite claims to the contrary, the Identity Protection Act spells trouble for White House officials. Republican talking points have achieved some success in muddying the waters by insisting that Robert Novak's outing of CIA clandestine officer, Valerie Plame, was not a violation of the law. The typical presentation of this red herring was bandied about most recently in an October 10, 2005 article by Washington Times reporter, Joseph Curl. Curl wrote:
But lawyers familiar with the probe say special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald appears to be changing the grand jury's initial focus in part because the law protecting covert CIA operatives appears not to apply to Valerie Plame, whose name first surfaced in a July 2003 column by conservative Robert Novak. "There is not one fact that I have seen that there could be a violation of the agent identity act," said Victoria Toensing, a lawyer who helped draft the 1982 act.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act outlaws intentional disclosure of any information identifying a covert agent. The penalty for violating the law is imprisonment for up to 10 years.
But according to the law, Mrs. Plame was not a "covert agent" at the time that at least two senior Bush administration officials discussed her with reporters.
Ms. Toensing is wrong. Let us pray that Ms. Toensing is not practicing law these days because, if her comments in this article reflect her abilities as an attorney, clients could be in serious trouble. Valerie Plame was a "covert agent" as defined by the law. In her cover position as a consultant to Brewster-Jennings, Ms. Plame served overseas on clandestine missions. Just because she did not live overseas full time does not mean she did not work overseas using her status as a non-official cover officer.
Unfortunately, the organized plot by White House officials to expose Valerie Plame also permanently ended her ability to ever serve overseas in an official cover position. At a minimum, U.S. tax payers invested at least $250,000 (that is in 1985 dollars) in training Valerie as a case officer. Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and others not yet revealed destroyed by their reckless acts her career, a CIA front company, and a network of intelligence assets.
The law to "protect the identities of undercover officers, agents, and sources" is only one possible source of jeopardy for the White House gang. (The key parts of the law are reprinted below.) The important point is not that a law was broken, but that our country is in the hands of a President who is willing to tolerate people in his Administration who are admitted liars and who played a direct role in compromising our nation's security. President Bush is sending a clear message--it is more important to protect cronies than protect this country.
Oct 17, 2005 -- 10:01:34 PM EST
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 421 § 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (d) Imposition of consecutive sentences A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426
§ 426. Definitions
Release date: 2005-03-17
For the purposes of this subchapter:
(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.
Just because a person WRITES the law doesn't mean they UNDERSTAND it!
NOthing would please me more than to go through the discovery process as far as Mr. & Mrs. Wilson go. Can you say.........oooooooooooooops
You covered most of it.
Valerie Plame was known publicly, to friends and neighbors and much of the diplomatic community in Washington D.C. as both Valerie Plame and Mrs. Valerie Wilson, married to Ambassador Joe Wilson and working as an analyst at the CIA.
On June 14, 2003 Joe Wilson spoke at a forum sponsored by the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC). The website for EPIC includes a biography of Wilson under the June 14, 2003, event that concludes with this sentence: "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children."
One of the keys in all the criminal aspects of the law is the "outer" has to have gotten the name of the "covert" agent by way of access to classified information; classified information that identified the "covert" agent's status as "classified".
It is unlikely in any of the scenarios identified so far that anyone went to a classfied document-source and looked up and found the "classified identity" of Valerie Plame.
Of course, let's not forget that in order to do her enbeded WMD reporting in Iraq, Judith Miller was cleared for and obtained a top-secret security clearance. Now, at the time that was to prevent her from revealing any classified information she witnessed the acquisition of during her WMD reporting stint in Iraq. I wonder what else it gave her access to when she got back? But, maybe it does not matter because now she says she really does not remember from who or from where she got Valerie's name. Maybe her 85 days in jail gave her amnesia.
>>>No need to apologize.<<<
None was forthcoming. Why do you think you deserve an apology?
It's a lot of "ifs" and wishful thinking.
Lyin' Joe is daydreaming that IF Cheney, Rove and Libby are indicted and Bush named as an unindicted co-conspirator and IF they are convicted of intentionally violating the IIPA, then Lyin' Joe plans to bring a civil suit against the whole bunch on a cause of action based on some sort of tortious damage to Val's career as a secret agent. (Lyin' Joe and Val can't sue for defamation because what was said about Val was not untrue.)
In Wilson's daydream, because the facts will already have been proved in a criminal proceeding at the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, it will be procedurally easy for them to bring the established facts into a civil suit that is subject to the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
Of course, there can be no compensatory damages in such a suit anyway because the book deals, speaking fees, etc. that the self-promoting Lyin' Joe is getting out of this event will far outweigh whatever the future earnings of Val in her career as a secret agent might have been. But I'm sure Lyin' Joe's lawyers would come up with some creative theories on damages.
Anyway, in the event of such a suit, Lyin' Joe hopes to be able to put the president and the others on the stand in order to humiliate them. Paula Jones v. Clinton established the principle that a president is not beyond the reach of civil suits solely by virtue of his position.
I am getting so sick of this crap.
Karl Rove's psychic powers apparently extend to persuading reporters to call him about welfare reform and then, seemingly of their own volition, slip in a question about Plame, giving Rove the opportunity to further his nefarious plot.
It was probably those "Granmama" commercials he did. LOL!
Has the Constitutionality of this "Identity Protection Act" ever been tested?
It sounds like a dodge to avoid accountability.
Good question: What did her W-2s say her employer was?
And what did her tax form say her occupation was?
Did she ever park her car in the CIA parking lot?
Then she wasn't covert.
Joe Wilson is currently traveling around the country speaking at Democrat functions. His talking points come straight from the wackiest wing of the Democrat Party. ("Bush lied . . .")
Maybe she parked in the "Covert Lot". Permit only, don't cha know.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... I double dare him to have a debate with her about this
Check the date of the article...
Flashback: "Intelligence Analyst" Larry C. Johnson: "The Declining Terrorist Threat (July 10, 2001)
New York Times ^ | July 10, 2001 | Larry C. Johnson
The Declining Terrorist Threat
By LARRY C. JOHNSON
WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.
Victoria Toensing wrote the damn law. Larry is a dumb*ss. If most at CIA are anything like Larry Johnson no wonder they couldn't find WMDs and/or got intelligence wrong.
Meet Larry Johnson
The CIA official turned Democratic spokesman has a pre-9/11 mindset.
by Gary Schmitt
07/25/2005 12:11:00 PM
ON SATURDAY, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson gave the Democratic party's weekly radio address and excoriated President Bush for not having fired Karl Rove and others in connection with the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the press. This followed Johnson's appearance before a panel of House and Senate Democrats on Friday, where he made similar criticisms of the president. A self-described Republican, Johnson argued that the failure of the president to fire Rove and anyone else supposedly involved in the leak had severely damaged national security and would certainly hamper future efforts to recruit informants in the war on terror.
Well, it's good to see that the former CIA employee is now worried about the war on terror. But it's a bit late. On July 10, 2001--two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--Johnson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times ("The Declining Terrorist Threat") in which he argued that Americans were "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism" and, in truth, had "little to fear" from terrorism. And, in turn, he rebuked his former colleagues in the national security bureaucracy for using the "fiction" of the terrorist threat to pump up their budgets.
Nor was this Johnson's first foray into dismissing bin Laden and al Qaeda. Johnson, who also served as the deputy director for the office of counterterrorism at the State Department in the early 90s, was interviewed by PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, "Hunting for bin Laden." According to Johnson, Americans had
"tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb," when in reality he is "more of a symptom of a problem" than a looming threat. And while bin Laden "would like to kill Americans . . . wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place." By Johnson's lights, "Osama bin Laden . . . has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game."
The Democratic party wants to use Larry Johnson as a seemingly safe mouthpiece to attack to the president. But, in doing so, they have adopted someone who fits perfectly the profile of the pre-9/11 CIA: see no evil, hear no evil. As documented in report after report, the CIA's directorate of operations had no assets in al Qaeda and CIA's analysts were asleep at the switch when it came to analyzing the scale of the threat posed by bin Laden.
http://tinyurl.com/9g9o7
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.