Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

[lily]

Cocky........are you willing to say those three little words now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 4:24 p.m. ET May 29, 2007
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's
employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in
a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame
was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court
supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President
Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing
the CIA leak investigation.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and
obstruction of justice trial.


Undercover travel
The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that
syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says,
"Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative
measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and
was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at
CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame,
"engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The
report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."
When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and
sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or
non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

Criminal prosecution beat national security
After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely
reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms
Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of
the leak.

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal
prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might
reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's
employment and cover status."

[Mr. P]

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal
prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might
reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's
employment and cover status."

That alone screams she wasn't covert. Hell, her husband even announced she was CIA at parties before all this started. Really a non-issue. IMO

[manu1959]

how covert can you be if the CIA doesn't care?

[Yurt]

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame,
"engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The
report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."
When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and
sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or
non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

So not fully undercover. And how "covert" are you if you are sometimes covert and others "not?" How can this be "always" using cover?

[manu1959]

wait a minute gates was a clinton plant.....anyone checked the humidor for dna?

[nevadamedic]

wait a minute gates was a clinton plant.....anyone checked the humidor for dna?

Huh?

[DragonStryk72]

Regardless of what missions she is on, regardless of how often she was undercover, leaking it to the press was inexcusable, and as well, has most likely destroyed her career, all for some stupid political crap with her husband.

It would be the same as outing an undercover SEAL, or undercover cop. The undercover process only works because the agents involved know that the government is behind them on it. When that government betrays that trust, then it hurts all field agents, not just her. What cases might she have been attached to? Can she be linked to other undercover agents? none of these questions were asked by those who decided to do this, seeing only a way to hurt and enemy.

[nevadamedic]

Regardless of what missions she is on, regardless of how often she was undercover, leaking it to the press was inexcusable, and as well, has most likely destroyed her career, all for some stupid political crap with her husband.g publical there were no WMDly saying

It would be the same as outing an undercover SEAL, or undercover cop. The undercover process only works because the agents involved know that the government is behind them on it. When that government betrays that trust, then it hurts all field agents, not just her. What cases might she have been attached to? Can she be linked to other undercover agents? none of these questions were asked by those who decided to do this, seeing only a way to hurt and enemy.

I agree but ive also herd that she outed herself by talking nationally about no WMD in Iraq. Id she was under deep cover the President and Vice President wouldn't be privledged to that information let alone their staff members.

[DragonStryk72]

Save that the person in charge of the CIA is appointment by the president

[avatar4321]

She wasnt covert. Anyone who can read the law understands this. If she was Armitage would have been prosecuted for leaking the name.

[Birdzeye]

That alone screams she wasn't covert. Hell, her husband even announced she was CIA at parties before all this started. Really a non-issue. IMO

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.

[Dilloduck]

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.

Who cares?--Is her life in danger now?

[Birdzeye]

Who cares?--Is her life in danger now?

As far as I know, no. However, that's not the point. I can only surmise that you righties are taking such a casual attitude about the outing of a covert CIA agent, and trying to minimize the seriousness of such an act, because it looks suspiciously like it was willfully orchestrated by members of the Bush administration, for political reasons.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, don't kneecap me for this one, but the reason that charges haven't been brought is because the Dems in office aren't taking it to court. Look, what ever you might think of the republican party, the dems haven't been stepping up, really. Well, they do, but then they print a retraction of it, hence why they haven't gone after Bush directly.

[Dilloduck]

As far as I know, no. However, that's not the point. I can only surmise that you righties are taking such a casual attitude about the outing of a covert CIA agent, and trying to minimize the seriousness of such an act, because it looks suspiciously like it was willfully orchestrated by members of the Bush administration, for political reasons.

That's the danger of hyper-partisan activities. When you try to make some big deal out of EVERYTHING, you credibilty goes all to hell. You are seen as another partisan hack instead someone who seems seriously interested resolving issues that are preventing America from coming together.