It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Valerie Plame's Identity Was Marked As Secret

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
www.washingtonpost.com...

quote

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

end of quote.


She exposed herself when she contributed to ALGORE's campaign in 2000 using her "secret identity" Valerie Wilson (how original). She also exposed a CIA front company while doing so.

How can someone be covert and undercover while using her husbands name as an alias? She was also well known by neighbors, who also knew she worked for the CIA.

This whole thing is a fraud.




posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

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]


Well, if the information wasn't from classified sources, it wouldn't be very reliable, because by default, anything conclusively identifying her as a secret agent or doing secret work, would have to be secret itself!

I agree regarding waiting.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
www.washingtonpost.com...

quote

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

end of quote.


She exposed herself when she contributed to ALGORE's campaign in 2000 using her "secret identity" Valerie Wilson (how original). She also exposed a CIA front company while doing so.

How can someone be covert and undercover while using her husbands name as an alias? She was also well known by neighbors, who also knew she worked for the CIA.

This whole thing is a fraud.


Have you read the entire article? She didn't expose herself, the company was her COVER. She listed it as her employer.

Also, it's interesting to note that the article states the following:

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
There is also the matter of Rove having given false information. From all indications, he lied to the grand jury about having any conversation with any reporters concerning this matter. Period. We are looking at a possible perjury case being built if they choose.
Certainly, he denied ANY involvement in the situation until after the information had been disclosed by two other sources. I believe the notes of one of the reporters were given over, and Novak seems to have admitted it to the grand jury in order to cut a deal. In my own mind, I'm simply not able to understand Rove "forgetting" that he had talked with both men for 2 years!. That doesn't prove that he outed her intentionally, but it does show a willingness to not be upfront.

As for legalities, the code I have read does seem to deal with situations wherein a person high in the CIA itself, acts as a spy and gives information to other countries. The restrictions and limitations on those who it deals with seem to be in place to protect those who through contact may have learned information that they should not have and then passed it on without ever realizing the significance. For example, someone's child overhears something and talks to a friend so on. Rove is also cleared of liability for giving the information because this code is for thos who "have clearance" fort this information. It's meant to deal with upper leve inner CIA leaks.

However, (as to Valaris's designation)if you will read (ii) below.


(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

she would NOT have had to live outside of the united states if she was "acting as an agent of, or informant to.." I have no idea if she was or not , of course.

The comment about the documents marked secret being "a mistake" may be true, I would like to get a link that shows me where this has been claimed by anyone in the CIA. But look, in order for this to matter the description written in a code of law to specify a covert agent, which was written by someone outside the actual CIA, (and not,by the way, for the purpose of actually PROVING someone was covert, cause who could imagine that).....that this description has more authority over this designation than does the CIA. What, is someone sitting in a room keeping track to make sure that noone should accidently not be used outside of the country for 5 years unless they are woking with the FBI cause then damn, they can't be considered covert!

Regardless, whoever read the "documents marked as "secret" would have thought they were correct. I can't imagine a situation where a person would have read that and thought, "OH, no, I happen to know exactly what constitutes a person who is an agent, this piddly little "secret" designation is invalid, the CIA telling me she is an agent is not a way to determine this and I will ignore it and I know that this is a mistake. What's more, it's a mistake that I am validated in completely ignoring, these guys should ask ME who to mark as secret and not secret for I'm clearly the one to determine just that."
A person within the CIA is designated secret by that agency until that agency chooses to stop doing so, not when others outside choose, based on whatever information they have.( How can we even think we would be able to determine such a thing? If she was active or not, we shouldn't be ABLE to tell! !!! But, as a note of interest, we are talking about a woman who was involved with the issue of WMD proliferation! I almost can't imagine that she would NOT have been active at a time like this). Regardless, the reality is that we should not be able to find out if someone is an agent. It SHOULD look as if they are not. Right!??! I see only two ways of this being indicated and they are MEANT to apply to a small group of people:
1. those actually involved within the department (CIA)
2. those with clearance for information they need due to their position. (government + military) - and if a fact is marked secret, these people are not in a position to judge the veracity of that- how could they?

and finally, we now have a third way;

3. The CIA comes forward and SAYS that this person is an agent. (..which is the exact opposite of everything it is designed to do.)

#2 should be the only way a person within the government or the US should be informed of this. I hope with all my heart that the CIA would be able to hide the activities of such a person from the likes of me. So how would I be able to judge. Because her husband wrote something in a book? Hmm? To be honest, and I have not read the book, if it really does tell so much about her activities even though it is not about her, I would find that to be a little odd. I do read memoir's but they don't usually cover the location of the other individuals in the author's life to the point that I would end the book thinking that I knew where the other person had been everyday for the last five years. Is the book a daily diary, starting each chapter with "I opened my eyes to to see my wife.." and ending with ""and then closed my eyes, to sleep next to my wife who has not been out of the country today, either..."

...that's kinda a funny thought ,huh?
I apoligize. Something in the book may very well indicate that she has not done so. I have not read it.

Finally, regarding the code, the definition for "covert agent" is really just defining the term for the purposes of the enforcment of this code. This is very common in legal documents. Clarifying, as it were, who was covered under this law. I don't think that it can be used as a complete definition of who a covert agent is. So if it can be shown in a court of law that she matches the description here it simply means theat Rove might have broken this law and if not then he is not liable "under this law". It says NOTHING else about his actions. But I ask you, is this a situation we want to occur often. Is it good for us that Mrs. Wilson has been clearly marked as having at least at somepoint been an undercover agent, so that every person associated with her outside of America is now being looked at by their government as having been involved with an agent. People who are deciding, perhaps, whether to divulge information or make contact now, what should they think? That if they do, 8 years later they everyone might know?

Lastly, as to the def of "covert agent" exactly how clear a picture would the CIA be wanting to draw of who was an agent and who was not? A very specific one that covered all situations and could be easily applied by those outside the CIA, well, wouldn't that be a little "non-covert".

Regardless, I am not going to judge this situation by the law. Legality is not morality. It seems to me that :

1.Rove has not been at all upfront or even honest about any of this. If I had given information out because I didn't know it was secret, I would have admitted to it. Why not? The law concerning the matter seems to allow for that very thing. If he didn't know it was wrong why would he choose to act in this manner?

2. I never heard one thing about Valarie not really being an agent until AFTER Rove's attorney formally admitted to there having been a discussion between Rove and the reporters involved. I guess it's easier to argue all this in the media though. In a court of law it would probably make any lawyer feel weird to argue with the CIA about someone's designation as, well, they should freak'n know, right? And, they can prove that they indicated this to those with the correct clearance by marking them "secret".

3. Rove has been Bush's right hand man since the Texas campaign. I don't expect anything like perfection in anyone. I am troubled by the lack of judgement in others this would seem to indicate. And if he did know, well, that one worries me, too.

(I'm sorry this is so long! Just looked up and realized...sheesh!)



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
.
There is probably far more paper generated for whitehouse consumption in a week than a human being could read in a year.

This could have easily been an oversight on the part of Whitehouse staff.

That said, This is National Security we are talking about. While it may be understandable it however can not be excused.

The entire nation's security is solely under the Whitehouse's direction via Homeland Security. This kind of irresponsibility can not be accepted.

Now given the low dirty politics this Whitehouse and their Republican cohort have stooped to in the past [like smearing McCain in South Carolina] It is easy to believe they did this knowingly with the arrogance that 'We can do ANYTHING and get away with it'.

Rove and Cheney's staff person should be out on their asses for being irresponsible to National Security.

But then Bush got away with Desertion in Florida during Vietnam, maybe they can get away with this too.
.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
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, I can confirm this. I have a relative who is with DHS. He/she has secret clearance. However, his/her identity and who he/she works for is not a secret.

When his/her name is mentioned in an gov't document it has a "S" next to it. It merely describes his clearance. I assure you he/she is not a covert agent.

Further, I have another relative who is USAF (ret). His/her security clearance was also "secret". His/her name, when noted in a gov't document hand "S" denoted next to it.

I'm not a right wing neocon Bush follower either. I'm just stating the facts as I know them. I hope this helps.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by sosuemetoo]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I read recently that Novak has suggested that he got Valarie Plame's name from Who's Who in Washington. If I remember the published scenario correctly, Rove and others told Novak that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Novak looked Wilson up in Who's Who. The book listed his wife's name and maiden name. I doubt Who's Who had a (S) next that to that paragraph.

Even if this is true and Rove didn't directly out a CIA agent (active or not, undercover or not), what Rove did can only be considered ethical in the moral wasteland known as Washington D.C. He was wrong, his motives were wrong, and Bush should expel him from the administration. This nonsense has been a distraction for long enough and Rove can't possibly be worth it.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
.
Maybe Cheney, Rove, Condi & Bush all know things about one another [shared secrets] that makes it difficult to force any of them to do anything that individual doesn't do willingly, short of an unfortunate accident that is.
.




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join