Judge Dismisses former CIA Operative Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Against

[DeadCanDance]

Just one BIG GLARING problem with that. The law STIPULATES that if the Agency discloses her identy OR fails to protect it, then they can not then claim a violation of the law. THEY acknowledged to a reporter that she WORKED for the CIA.

The entire case was about someone "leaking" she was an employee of the CIA. No charge was EVER made anyone told anyone else specifically that she was an undercover asset.

Rove, Libby, and Wilkerson blew her cover dude. Whether or not it was illegal, they blew it.

That's why the CIA was pissed, and had Justice Department open an investigation. CIA is in the business of protecting classified and covert agents. They're not supposed to be blown. A CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, was blown too, thanks to Plame's name and her association with CIA being published.

 

[Alpha1]

Rove, Libby, and Wilkerson blew her cover dude. Whether or not it was illegal, they blew it.

That's why the CIA was pissed, and had Justice Department open an investigation. CIA is in the business of protecting classified and covert agents. They're not supposed to be blown. A CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, was blown too, thanks to Plame's name and her association with CIA being published.

Armatage tells Novak ...Palme works for the CIA....
Novak calls the CIA....CIA confirms she works at the Agency....
Novak prints story and tells the world.....
equals....
Rove, Libby, and Wilkerson blew her cover

OOOOOOOOOkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!

2+2=9 in this world.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Rove, Libby, and Wilkerson blew her cover dude. Whether or not it was illegal, they blew it.

That's why the CIA was pissed, and had Justice Department open an investigation. CIA is in the business of protecting classified and covert agents. They're not supposed to be blown. A CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, was blown too, thanks to Plame's name and her association with CIA being published.

What part of " The CIA acknowledged" she worked for the CIA do you not grasp? The CIA blew what ever supposed cover she had. And remind me again how being an employee of the CIA and everyone knows it, is a cover for being an undercover operative? The "front Company" was toast because she was working OPENLY at and openly acknowledged to be an CIA employee.

She openly drove to and from CIA headquarters on a daily basis. The switch board OPENLY acknowledged she was an employee there when asked. Ya that sure is some classified covert cover and it sure protected what ever front company she claimed to be working for when she might really have been a covert agent years before.

I wonder if i can use the freedom of Information act to find out what her "cover" was on those jaunts outside the US in the last 7 years. She openly worked at CIA, any Government or agency that monitors them would have her coming and going on a daily basis. hardly able to support some "cover" for some front company like that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh ya and on the claim the COURTS have ruled she was covert, PROVIDE some evidence of that ruling please. Or retract it.

 

[JeffWartman]

Using your excuse, then the meer mention of her as an employee of the CIA would have been no concern at all. And thats ALL that happened. And to remind you, the CIA admitted to a reporter she was in fact an employee of said agency.

Your example is complete irrelevant.

It means nothing.

Thanks for the useless post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your example is complete irrelevant.

It means nothing.

Thanks for the useless post.

It is only pointless to mindless partisan hacks that keep claiming that somehow a person that openly worked for and at the CIA was covert and had her cover blown by someone telling everyone she worked at the CIA. Conformation of her employment provided by the CIA.

 

[JeffWartman]

Just one BIG GLARING problem with that. The law STIPULATES that if the Agency discloses her identy OR fails to protect it, then they can not then claim a violation of the law. THEY acknowledged to a reporter that she WORKED for the CIA.

The entire case was about someone "leaking" she was an employee of the CIA. No charge was EVER made anyone told anyone else specifically that she was an undercover asset.

Irrelevant. You understand that Libby was charged with an illegal activity you ignore, and convicted, right?

Nothing you say holds any relevance. I guess that's why people continue to laugh at you behind your back.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Irrelevant. You understand that Libby was charged with an illegal activity you ignore, and convicted, right?

Nothing you say holds any relevance. I guess that's why people continue to laugh at you behind your back.

We are NOT talking about Libby, we are talking about the supposed purpose of the original investigation and the fact it was one big lie. We are talking about the fact that a certain poster has claimed that the COURTS ruled she was covert. Did NOT happen, provide evidence it did. But you already kow that and like a good liberal you are trying to change the subject or obfusicate the issue. And as usual you resort to attempts to divert the discuss to a personal one about someone that points out your moronic drivel.

 

[Stephanie]

You have to wonder........Why there IS SO little whining and gnashing of teeth over this...except for a very few...

Could it be???

They all knew.....

Naaaaaaaaaaaa, Just my imagination running wild...yeah that's it...

 

[Edward]

Lost her career??? A bit melodramatic....

Anyone...thats means anyone,...could have followed her to work at the CIA any day of any week and be sure she was an agency employee....you, me, or anyone with a car....she was sitting behind a desk, working as a analyst, and could STILL be doing that job as long as she wanted.....BUT SHE QUIT....she wasn't fired, she wasn't asked to leave, she wasn't "laid off"....SHE QUIT !

Her career as a covert agent was over the moment her covert status was revealed and staying with the CIA even in what appeared to be a non-covert status would put her at serious risk. She did what any intelligent person who cares about their lives would do which is to resign her position with the CIA in order to avoid the appearance on the part of our enemies that she still worked for the CIA as a covert agent who was using the cover of being just another CIA employee to disguise her activities. As for anyone being able to follow her to work. None of them would have KNOWN what she did there but now they DO because the ADMINISTRATION revealed her covert status. For all anyone knows she was a janitor at the CIA, worked as a secretary or in any other position there. There was no way for someone to know that she was covert based on her going to work everday. You say she could have been behind a desk working as an analyst until someone KIDNAPPED HER while on the way to work, and tortured her THINKING THAT HER ANALYST POSITION WAS JUST A COVER FOR HER REAL WORK JUST LIKE HER EMPLOYEE STATUS WAS A COVER FOR HER COVERT STATUS. This woman did the right thing in putting her life, and safety ahead of her career but she should never have been forced to make that decision.

 

[Edward]

Hiya Alpha,

You are NOT possibly suggesting that there are NO UNDERCOVER AGENTS working at Langley because they would have to drive to work there and go in through the doors to work there...are you?

If you are suggesting this Alpha....then...you're nuts! It must be some NEW talking point you and those on the Right were instructed to repeat because on every political board I have been on this is a comment from someone on the "right" such as yourself, like her driving to work eliminates her from being an Undercover Intelligence Officer for the CIA?



Care

That is exactly what he is being suggested but it is contradicted by the facts which is that every day people go to work at Langley in a covert capacity by using a cover reason for being there. Let me quote the Washington Post on a matter that happened back in 2004. The Washington Post published the following statement "The associate deputy director of counterintelligence, a highly respected case officer whose name is being withheld because she is undercover, told Michael Sulick, the associate deputy director of operations, about the threat. Sulick told his superior, Kappes, and both sought a meeting with Goss to complain." There you have it! An Associate Deputy Director who works out of Langley was considered undercover. Her role at the CIA was not known and was not released by the CIA and her covert role at the CIA was kept secret even though people could have followed her to and from work everyday without ever knowing that she was the Associate Deputy Director of Counterintelligence.

This is the day to day associate deputy director of the counterintelligence efforts of the CIA which included the counter-proliferation division that Valarie Plame was a part of while at the CIA when her work in that division was released. Some people claim that she could have continued working at the CIA as an analyst but that isn't true if she considers her life and safety to be of any value. She now must cut any contact with the CIA because everyone including our enemies know what she really did at the CIA and would not believe that she did not continue in that function. The only way she was able keep herself safe was to make it apparent that she no longer acts as a covert agent. Of course there is still some risk to her as a result of her covert status being revealed but that risk is minimized as a result of her ending her work with the CIA. Now the only people who will go after her will be those who want some information from the past but had she continued in any function at the CIA our enemies would always assume that she still worked in a covert function and that increases the amount of risk to her.

 

[Edward]

so let me get this straight....i am working under cover for the CIA.....which means i don't want anyone to know that i work for the CIA....yet i drive to CIA headquaters everyday to go to work....

bloody hell...that is the perfect cover....

It was for the ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE who was undercover at the CIA. Here is a quote from the Washington Post which supports this: "The associate deputy director of counterintelligence, a highly respected case officer whose name is being withheld because she is undercover, told Michael Sulick, the associate deputy director of operations, about the threat. Sulick told his superior, Kappes, and both sought a meeting with Goss to complain." This woman was the day to day executive director of the counterintelligence efforts of the CIA and her covert status was kept secret even while she traveled to and from Langley to do her job. It's the perfect cover because there is no way to keep the fact that they work at Langley secret and yet there role as a covert agent must still be kept secret. The only way to do that is to acknowledge their employment at the CIA when directly asked but to deny any covert function on their part. This is why I do not doubt that if asked they would have ADMITTED that the ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE worked at the CIA while refusing to acknowledge that she was the ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE since it is the covert status that they are attempting to keep secret while it would have been impossible to avoid suspicion if they denied her employment at Langley.

 

[Edward]

manu made my point pretty clearly.....

Your point is idiotic. No one would ever choose to accept a temporary work assignment at Langley if they thought it would end their career as a covert agent. The fact that someone works at Langley does not mean that they are not covert agents. It merely means that people know they work for Langley but do not know of their covert status. For all anyone knows she was a janitor at the CIA (some of which I am sure are covert agents) based on her travel to and from Langley.

I can hear the CIA switchboard operator saying "Yes, Mr. Bill Smith does work here." When asked to confirm the type of employment they would respond by saying, "Mr. Smith works in custodial services." While at the same time Mr. Smith is the Associate Deputy Director of Counterintelligence. LMAO... This holds true of Valarie Plame as well. No one knew of her covert role at the CIA until that information was released by the administration which effectively ended her career.

 

[Edward]

Using your excuse, then the meer mention of her as an employee of the CIA would have been no concern at all. And thats ALL that happened. And to remind you, the CIA admitted to a reporter she was in fact an employee of said agency.

That isn't true at all. It wasn't a mere mention of her. The statement made by the administration was that she sent her husband to Niger and it's very clear based on the report that she worked in counter-proliferation. Why is that important? Because people who work in Counterproliferation work in a covert role at the CIA. Today, they work for what is called the National Clandestine Service but at the time of Plames outing it was referred to as the Directorate of Operations and the only person who worked in that Directorate whose identity is known was the Deputy Director of Operations. The role of everyone below him is classified.

 

[Edward]

Just one BIG GLARING problem with that. The law STIPULATES that if the Agency discloses her identy OR fails to protect it, then they can not then claim a violation of the law. THEY acknowledged to a reporter that she WORKED for the CIA.

The entire case was about someone "leaking" she was an employee of the CIA. No charge was EVER made anyone told anyone else specifically that she was an undercover asset.

The case was never about someone leaking that she was an employee of the CIA instead the case was about them leaking her covert relationship to the CIA. Whose next? Will the Bush administration leak the identity of the entire leadership of the National Clandestine Service? The CIA would never be able to pass the level of credibility necessary to keep the covert status of an agent secret if they denied that someone who travels to and from Langley every day works there. The only way they can keep that secret is if they acknowledge that she works there but not what she does. This is how they are able to keep the identity of an Associate Deputy Director secret and it is how they routinely conduct the Agency. You walk into Langley under cover and while there you act in a covert role. It is that relationship which is protected by the law and which was released by the Bush Administration.

 

[Edward]

What part of " The CIA acknowledged" she worked for the CIA do you not grasp? The CIA blew what ever supposed cover she had. And remind me again how being an employee of the CIA and everyone knows it, is a cover for being an undercover operative? The "front Company" was toast because she was working OPENLY at and openly acknowledged to be an CIA employee.

What part of "it doesn't matter that they acknowledged her employment" do you not grasp since it's not her identity that is classified but her covert role at the CIA that was classified. I am more than happy to remind you how. It's the same way that an Associate Deputy Director is covert while everyone knows they work at the CIA. No one knows the covert status of an employee of the CIA because that is protected under the law because it is classified. Nor was the "front company" toast because she was working openly with the CIA. No one knew for sure that her former employment with that company was as a part of her career at the CIA. They could have guessed as much but since no one knew she was a covert agent they could not be sure that her former employment was anything other then a previous job but once her covert status became known that changed the picture since it makes more sense that her role at the company was a cover for her role as a covert operative.

She openly drove to and from CIA headquarters on a daily basis. The switch board OPENLY acknowledged she was an employee there when asked. Ya that sure is some classified covert cover and it sure protected what ever front company she claimed to be working for when she might really have been a covert agent years before.

Denying that she worked for the CIA would have made it quite clear that she was covert since everyone could have deduced from the fact that she worked there and from the fact that the Agency denied it that she was covert but because they acknowledged her employment when directly asked it served as a cover. I cannot safely deduce that she was a covert agent or that she was a covert agent while working for Brewsters Jennings based on the single fact that she was currently an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency since I would have no way of knowing when she began her work for the CIA. It would be a good guess but I wouldn't consider it very reliable or credible but that would change if I knew that she was a covert operative who worked in the Directorate of Operations at the CIA. That increases my suspicisons of the front company. That you cannot understand this shows how retarded you are.

I wonder if i can use the freedom of Information act to find out what her "cover" was on those jaunts outside the US in the last 7 years. She openly worked at CIA, any Government or agency that monitors them would have her coming and going on a daily basis. hardly able to support some "cover" for some front company like that.

How many times must it be stated that her foreign assignments will not be released to you, or to any jury and that this is why there has been no prosecution. The only supporting evidence we need is that she is that the CIA classified her covert status, and that they say she worked abroad in the last five years, and that her identity was revealed. It's always safe for a member of the administration to assume that a person who works for the CIA in a covert role is in fact a covert agent whose role is classified, and it's also safe to assume that she traveled abroad at some point in time prior to her identity being released and unless they had a 5 year work history than they had no business telling anyone that she worked in a covert role at the CIA. They know damn well that even the Associate Deputy Director of Counterintelligence can be considered a covert agent whose identity is protected under the law and you are telling me that they still chose to release Plames identity without knowing whether she was protected under the law. That's bullshit and when you couple it with the fact that the Director of the CIA says she was a covert agent it becomes clear that you chose to ignore the facts in order to defend the Administration who crossed the line.

 

[Edward]

It is only pointless to mindless partisan hacks that keep claiming that somehow a person that openly worked for and at the CIA was covert and had her cover blown by someone telling everyone she worked at the CIA. Conformation of her employment provided by the CIA.

It is you who is the partisan hack because you keep claiming she was not a covert agent because she openly worked at the CIA even though that is what happens all the time at the CIA. It has been demonstrated as far back as 2004 that people who work at the CIA are considered undercover including an Associate Deputy Director. You have to be a retard! Let me put it this way for you: There is no way the CIA could deny she worked there without telling every person who knew she did that she was a covert agent. The only way they could protect her identity as a covert agent was to confirm that she worked there when directly asked. This happens all the time. A person walks into Langley as an employee of the CIA and some work in a overt role while others assume a cover assignment while performing a covert role. The CIA admits they work there while denying that she was a covert agent. This is something that is easy to understand because it shows that the CIA has no problem acknowledging that someone works at the CIA while maintaining their covert status. There are different career paths and the CIA is able to handle those different paths in such a way that a covert agent remains a covert agent without anyone knowing it but that possibility was destroyed when the administration released information about her covert role at the CIA.

 

[Edward]

We are NOT talking about Libby, we are talking about the supposed purpose of the original investigation and the fact it was one big lie.

That an investigation was based on an incorrect assumption (which it wasn't) is not relevant when it comes to obstruction of justice or perjury. The basis of the original investigation does not have to be valid for the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice to occur. If I commit perjury in a criminal or civil case or seek to obstruct justice in a criminal case then I can and should be convicted regardless of the original merits of the investigation.

But you already kow that and like a good liberal you are trying to change the subject or obfusicate the issue. And as usual you resort to attempts to divert the discuss to a personal one about someone that points out your moronic drivel.

People can talk about whatever they want to talk about and you don't get to decide everything. In every single post you set forth THE LAW, THE FACTS AND WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED because you are an arrogant asshole. It is you who is trying to obfusicate the issue by constantly repeating the same partisan talking points. You ignore the fact that there was testimony and statements on the part of Plame and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency that she wasa covert agent. Ironically, the Director was a Bush appointee. This man had has a distiniguished career and has demonstrated by his statement that Valarie Plame was a covert agent that he does not put partisan politics or the best interest of the person who appointed him ahead of the facts just like the Judge who sentenced Libby didn't put the interests of the Bush administration ahead of the interest of justice.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

Please explain to me which of the words in my post was not spelled correctly. I do wish I had your wisdom and knowledge of the English language but alas all the books I have read are wrong and do not use proper English according to you. I would like to make several points about your post. The first is that English is capitalized and "and" is a conjunction and therefore does not start a sentence and isn't capitalized. For your post to be proper English it would have read "Learn proper English and how to spell. Jackass Dumbocrat."

Each person has their own writing style and I have chosen to write using a more conversational tone instead of a formal tone. If my posts were a book or a professional paper I would change my writing style accordingly. It is important to remember that the way people use the English language differs based on what they tend to read the most. If they read books written in Old English or books written in a different era they tend to use that form when constructing sentences but I use a cross-section of writing styles. Since you claim to be the self professed expert as to what constitutes proper English I would love to have you explain to me how my post wasn't proper English while your response to it was.

Here is my post:



Here is your response:

I bet that you went through its not the grammer as much. It was your spelling there were alot of errors but I only get on here while I am at work. I am much to busy to be on much at home. So you probably edited your spelling. But regaurdless you are a liberal and as far as I am concerned you are just a maggot, and an oxygen thief.

 

[JeffWartman]

We are NOT talking about Libby, we are talking about the supposed purpose of the original investigation and the fact it was one big lie. We are talking about the fact that a certain poster has claimed that the COURTS ruled she was covert. Did NOT happen, provide evidence it did. But you already kow that and like a good liberal you are trying to change the subject or obfusicate the issue. And as usual you resort to attempts to divert the discuss to a personal one about someone that points out your moronic drivel.

Considering no one was ever charged, it's pretty much a non-issue at this point.

Move on.