POLITICS: Valerie Plame's Identity Was Marked As Secret

Today the Washington Post revealed that the identity former CIA agent Valerie Plame was considered by the US government as a secret by a state deparment memo dated June 10th, 2003. With the primary rationale for saying that Rove committed no crime now revealed as untrue and the Bush Administration still under pressure from the media, the future for Karl Rove is unclear at best.



So the rabbit hole goes deeper. Now it has been revealed that the identity of Valerie Plame was considered a secret it certainly makes the actions of Karl Rove less questionable in legality. Also, any excuse of ignorance over Plame's status as an agent is also highly questionable as anyone reading this document would be aware that it contained secret information.

I have tried to be very impartial to the Rove/Plame incident as information was sketchy and it was questionable to whether Rove had done anything wrong or if Plame was a covert agent or not. I do not think the actions of Rove and other suspects in the Bush Administration are honest or befitting of people who serve the public in office.

If any crime is done, I hope that the people who perpetrated it are brought to justice

Related News Links:
msnbc.msn.com
www.foxnews.com

It is becoming so clear that our media have been terribly manipulated and our government abused by the current leadership. I just hope we can actually change things.

An interesting perspective on all of this is that the investigation has been initiated by the CIA. It certainly seems they have been Bush's fall guys for a while and there is certainly some degree of resentment there as a result.

Rove will continue as usual. Can you honestly see Bush dismissing him?
You will never ever see that. Wonder what method will be used to silence this? I cant wait.

Valerie Plame's status was marked secret by the CIA, this is not new information. However, it seems this marking was outdated due to an error in never updating it. Under the law, she was no longer a covert agent.

Djohn, with all due respect, have you ever really thought about the citizens of America and for one moment forget your "Republican" party? You are so willing to sell us out- You dont ever see anything wrong? Ever?
Seriously, I know many Republicans who can plainly see a wrong where there is one.
Just an observation. You are one in a million.

dgtempe, facts are facts. The woman made no attempt to hide she was a CIA agent, she drove from her home straight to Langley to work at a desk job every day. She hadn't been undercover in years.

The law is quite specific as to what defines a covert agent, and Valarie Plame certainly didn't qualify at the time of the publication of this article. We are a nation of laws, as the inscription on the Supreme Court says, and we must follow them whether we like it or not. The law is clear on this matter, she wasn't covert.

Djohn, what do the ones who ARE undercover do daily? IMHO they get up and drive to work and pull "desk" time also. At least thats what i hear.
I dont mean to argue

dgtempe, since you've been gone for a while, I'll forgive your ignorance

Here's how the law defines a covert agent:

(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.

Cornell

So basically she had to have been an undercover agent working overseas or had been working overseas in the past 5 years. From Joe Wilson's own biography, it's clear that she was in the United States for well over 5 years at the time of this supposed leak.

If I am not mistaken, all CIA, FBI, NSA, and other intelligence/security agency employees are identified as "secret" or having "secret" clearance.

Maybe if we are lucky, one of our 'lurking' ATS members who works for one of the above or like agency can clarify this?

The law spells out what is deemed a violation or breach when applied to those who are identified as "secret" or higher.




seekerof

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Why investigate a situation (as Bush puts it) when there is no need to?
Surely, this woman and her superiors must know what her present job is.
If there's no problem, why investigate in the first place? Bush himself said on tv there's an investigation.

djohnsto, with all due respect, you cannot cite a single law and assume that it represents the entirety of whether or not something is legal. specifically, the law regarding karl rove and valerie plame is not limited to the section of the US Code you cite. karl rove is not being investigated solely on the basis of violating this one law. further, you should indicate that the definition of 'secret agent' you are referring to is not a catch-all definition for all legal matters, but applies solely, again, to the section of the US Code you cite.

-koji K.

Well Koji, that's the only law I've ever seen cited by the press as applicable.

Plus the U.S. Attorney investigating the matter has always said Karl Rove isn't a target of the investigation.

I'm not sure what or whom he's looking into, but apparently it's not Rove. The hype around Rove is a left-wing concoction to try to tarnish the President.

Rove may or may not be guilty of the "left wing" accusations against him. Only time will tell. But you may find more information on the laws implicated here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, Rove may not be a target, but he certainly is a subject of the investigation, according to the White House:

Q: Well, we'll see. But I just have one final question on this. The question of whether a law has been broken, a crime committed, is a separate matter. You're not going to resolve that; that's for a grand jury to decide. But we know what the facts are. We know that Karl Rove spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife, referring to the fact that she worked at the Agency. You've heard Democrats who say that -- say today that alone was inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish by having the conversation he did? And does the President think that it was fair of him to do that? Was it fair game?

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, that's a question related to an ongoing investigation. The investigation continues, David. I think you know that very well. I've responded to that question. And if I were to start commenting on news reports or things related to the investigation, I'm getting into prejudging the outcome of that investigation. I don't want to do that from this podium. Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point.

Source: White House Daily Briefing, July 12

-koji K.

It seems also that the grand jury is focusing on the State Department classified memo that mentioned Plame, but it mentioned her as "Valarie Wilson" while in the press she was called "Valarie Plame" suggesting that the classified memo was not the source of the information.

Valerie's documents marked S for Secret. Is that a mistake also?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Valerie's documents marked S for Secret. Is that a mistake also?

She had been a covert agent working overseas years and years ago, but then she got married and settled down in a desk job and her status was never updated. So yes, it was a mistake.

From Time Magazine, 7/25/05:

A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. "I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

-koji K.

If she had worked overseas in the last 5 years (from the date of the disclosure), then she'd qualify...if not she doesn't. From all appearances she was not stationed overseas during that time period.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it.

djohnsto, it's not for you or I to make that determination, or even the press.

do you understand that you are asking ATS'ers to present proof that an undercover agent was on assignment overseas?

you realize, that if we could present proof, we'd be guilty of the same crime Karl Rove is being accused of by some people here?

think about this one... you're asking us to provide information that is among the most highly protected in the nation... I doubt there are many people who could do that, and even less who are willing.

that is one reason why the only people qualified to deal with this situation would be a court sitting in closed session with access to this kind of information. if you wanted to be reasonable, though, you could infer that the fact the investigation has been ongoing for 2 years means that she must have a solid basis for bringing her claim.


-koji K.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by koji_K]

you realize, that if we could present proof, we'd be guilty of the same crime Karl Rove is being accused of by some people here?

Actually not, unless you had secret clearance and got that information from classified sources.


According to Joe Wilson's biography, she was not overseas in the last five years. I've seen no information that would contradict that. If, in fact, she was then it would satisfy that part of the law but there are several other hurdles that would have to be crossed in order to make it a crime.

Even most Democrats now are pretty much conceding that the law wasn't broken here.

We should wait for the report from the U.S. Attorney before we blast Rove, remember all of us are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[edit on 7/21/2005 by djohnsto77]