PLAME was a covert operative officer

C

Care4all

Junior Member
Contributor
she ALSO had been overseas as a covert agent WITHIN the last 5 years...

victoria tunsing got her butt kicked too in this hearing.... the mouthpiece of the administration who said she created this one law about outing an operative 25 years ago....

she kept saying valerie plame was not one.... and congressmen asked her, HOW do you know this, do you have information from the cia or some inside information that congress does not have....? she said no but.... went in to a partisan rant...

there were several laws and protocols that were broken regarding valerie plame... and several lies of the whitehouse were revealed like...

she NEVER sent her husband to niger as the repubs lied about...

and the president NEVER looked in to the leak as HE SAID HE WOULD....

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

CIA Director Hayden: Valerie Plame Was Covert Agent
Posted Mar 16th 2007 11:41AM by David Knowles
Filed under: Iraq War, Scandal, House Committees

This will be a bitter pill for some conservatives to swallow. CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public.

You see, many on the right (including some here at The Stump) have spent a lot of time trying to convince us otherwise. They never fail to use quotation marks when referring to the administration's "outing" of Plame so as to suggest that no such undercover status ever existed. While Patrick Fitzgerald may not have believed he had enough evidence to prove that a crime was committed, there was really never much doubt that Plame had covert status.

In fact, Plame's testimony proved illuminating on a number of fronts. Under oath, articulate, and forceful, she laid to waste a veritable forest of myths that the right has erected against her. No, she wasn't a mere pencil pusher, she'd undertaken undercover missions to foreign countries over the past five years. No, she hadn't been the one to select her husband to go to on his fact-finding mission to Niger. No, she didn't talk to Nicholas Kristof (or others in the media) about her job at the CIA. But most importantly, in the words of the man who now heads the CIA, she was very much a covert agent.

Quote:


here's an AP link

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...s/20070316104509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
 
Let me ask you this... Why in the hell did Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald not conclude that the law was broken, if what you say is true? It would be a fairly straightforward thing, it seems, if in fact a law was broken, and it just seems like there would have been some indictment on that charge. But, no, after 4 years of investigation, Fitz cleared everyone except Libby, and that was because he lied about what he knew and when, and had nothing to do with the law regarding the outing of a CIA operative.

No, she wasn't a mere pencil pusher, she'd undertaken undercover missions to foreign countries over the past five years.

As an Ambassador's wife, I am certain Plame visited foreign countries, probably in the past five years, and I am sure that she was possibly asked to find out information of some kind while she was there, but this does not make here a "covert CIA operative" in the official sense. Of course, liberals don't really care about the official sense, if they can construct some illusion that Plame was something she wasn't, well, that's all that really matters.

No, she hadn't been the one to select her husband to go to on his fact-finding mission to Niger.

Notice how the liberal slips the word "select" in there. Of course she never "selected" her husband to go to Niger, it wasn't Plame's responsibility to "select" and she didn't have the authority to do so, no one ever claimed she did. Fitzpatricks investigation revealed she DID request her husband be sent, and that request was eagerly granted because she was an Ambassador's wife, and had influence.

No, she didn't talk to Nicholas Kristof (or others in the media) about her job at the CIA.

I've never heard anyone accuse her of doing so, and I think it would be fairly easy to determine if this was true or false. In fact, I'll bet that Fitzgerald asked Kristof and others in the media about this, if it was something she had been accused of. Plame's husband did mention her working for the CIA in his online bio page, that is a fact the liberals just simply ignore and never respond to. Wonder why that is? Maybe it's because the online bio page appeared months before Novack even knew he was going to do the story, and anyone with an ounce of common sense can figure out, an award-winning journalist like Robert Novack could and would probably find Wilson's online bio page in his research, being that is how you get to be an award-winning journalist.

So, we know it was a matter of 'public domain' that Plame worked for the CIA. This was also widely known in Washington social circles. Her specific and official job at the CIA was never indicated to be anything more than administrative, and official covert CIA agents do not have 'cover jobs' at the CIA. It's usually something completely unrelated to the CIA, so as to maintain 'covertness' for best effect.

No, it was 'after-the-fact' that Plame became this big secret covert CIA operative. When the liberals tasted blood in the water and saw a political opportunity to exploit. They constructed this entire false case based on a law that did not apply to Plame, and proceeded to ram it down the throats of the justice system, demanding people be 'frog-marched' out of the White House in handcuffs and orange jump suits. It was fully investigated by the most bipartisan man who could have done the investigation, and he determined that no law was violated with regard to Plame.

No charges, no indictments, no conviction, no sentencing, nothing with regard to the actual so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame. One measly low-level staffer was indicted for giving false testimony, and he was tried and convicted for that, but it had nothing to do with the law regarding the outing of a covert agent, that law was not broken. So Sorry!

Here we are... 5 years later, and the liberals still want to fool you. They will work up all the dramatization they can, and fan as much smoke and ash dust around to make you think there is still something burning, but it starts to come off sounding like National Enquirer headlines... PLAME was a covert operative officer ...and bore the secret love child of Vladdy Putin!
 
Dixie....Hayden, our new CIA head, SAID SHE WAS AND IS UNTIL SHE WAS EXPOSED BY THE LEAKING OF THIS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, A COVERT INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, remove those Deamons that occupy YOU....

your are one SORRY idiot.

and one one more thing, FITZY DID NOT IN ANY WAY CLEAR ANYONE FROM LEAKING THIS INFORMATION....YOU ARE JUST A BIG FAT LIAR and on your way to hell....good riddence, you low life scum of the earth...the Beast is YOUR MASTER...the master of Deceipt.... enjoy your ride or repent, you have the CHOICE.... oh fake godly one.... liar, liar, pants on fire!

Valerie Plame Speaks--Finally--About CIA Leak Case David Corn
Fri Mar 16, 1:32 PM ET



The Nation -- Okay, can we finally get rid of one of the Libby Lobby's key talking points--that Valerie Plame Wilson was not an undercover CIA employee? This should be one outcome of the House oversight and government reform committee hearing on Friday, at which Valerie Wilson spoke for the first time at length about the leak case.

From the start of this scandal, confederates of the Bush White House (and backers of the war) have tried to diminish the significance of the administration leak that outed her as a CIA officer (as both legal and national security matters). Conservatives insisted she was not a clandestine officer doing anything important and that her employment at the CIA was either no big secret or no secret at all. A brief sampling:

* On September 29, 2003, former Republican Party spokesman Clifford May wrote that the July 14, 2003 Robert Novak column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection "wasn't news to me. I had been told that--but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."

* On September 30, 2003, National Review writer Jonah Goldberg huffed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already."

* On October 1, 2003, Novak wrote, "How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA....[A]n unofficial source at the agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations."

* On July 17, 2005, Republican Representative Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), then the House majority leader, said on Face the Nation, "This was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."

* On February 18, 2007, as the Libby trial was under way, Republican lawyer/operative Victoria Toensing asserted in The Washington Post, "Plame was not covert."

Anyone who has read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and me, would know (as we disclosed for the first time) that Valerie Wilson was the undercover operations chief for the Joint Task Force on Iraq of the Counterproliferation Division, a unit of the agency's clandestine operations directorate. (See my piece, "What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA," here.) Both the book and the article reported that she had traveled overseas--undercover--within the five years before her name appeared in the Novak column.

There was other evidence--official evidence--that she had been a covert officer at the CIA. When special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby in October 2005, he said that Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified information. (He repeated that at the trial.) And in a January 2004 letter to Democratic Representative John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the CIA noted that the Valerie Wilson's CIA employment status was "classified information."

Now comes the victim of the leak. Testifying to the committee, Valerie Wilson reported that the CIA still prohibits her from saying much about her CIA career. (The agency has held up the publication of her memoirs, claiming at one point that she cannot acknowledge working for the CIA prior to 2002.) But Plame was able to tell the committee, "I was a covert officer." She said she helped to "manage and run operations." She noted that prior to the Iraq war she had "raced to discover intelligence" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. "I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions," she said under oath, "to find vital intelligence." She said these trips had occurred within the past five years. She added that she could "count on one hand" the number of people outside the CIA who knew of her employment at the agency: "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit." She also explained that a covert officer at the CIA is "just like a general" who may spend time commanding troops in Afghanistan and then return to the Pentagon before heading off to another theater: "Covert operations officers, when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington, are still covert."

Before she testified, Representative Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman, read an opening statement in which he said that Valerie Wilson had been a "covert" officer" who had "served at various times overseas" and "worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States." Waxman noted that the CIA had cleared this statement. And during the questioning period, Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings (news, bio, voting record) reported that General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."

Will Toensing, Novak, May, Blunt, Goldberg and others admit they got this wrong? Perhaps even apologize to Valerie Wilson for misinforming the public about her clandestine public service? At the least, they should stop repeating the canard she was not a covert officer. (Victoria Toensing, this means you.)

At the hearing, other aspects of the leak affair were discussed. Valerie Wilson noted she certainly didn't know if any of the administration officials who disseminated information about her (Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage) realized she was undercover. But she added, "They should have been diligent in protecting me and other CIA officers." She explained that many employees of the CPD--where she worked--are covert, suggesting that Cheney and Libby (who both knew she was employed in that division) should have been careful in handling information about her.

One lingering question in the leak scandal is how much damage was done by the disclosure of her CIA connection. Her career as an operations officer was derailed. But were past or present operations blown? Specific sources and contacts endangered? Wilson testified that the CIA did a damage assessment but did not share it with her.

Wilson also addressed the issue of whether she dispatched her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, on his February 2002 trip to Niger, where he concluded there was not much to the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping there. For years, White House allies have tried to dismiss the importance of Wilson's trip by suggesting he was not qualified for the mission and had been sent (perhaps on a nepotistic junket) by his wife. They have pointed to a Senate intelligence committee report that suggested Valerie Wilson was instrumental in sending him. Before the House committee, she testified that she did not have the authority to dispatch her husband on such a trip, that a coworker had the idea to send Joe Wilson (news, bio, voting record) (who years earlier had taken on a similar assignment for the Counterproliferation Division), and that she had merely been asked to write a note confirming her husband's credentials. She also said that a colleague was misquoted within the Senate intelligence committee report (saying she had proposed her husband for the trip) and that this colleague subsequently was prevented by a superior from sending the committee a memo correcting the record. In other words, her husband's detractors have overplayed this angle. (By he way, much of this story was reported in Hubris.) Democrats on the committee said they would ask the CIA for a copy of the smothered memo.

After Valerie Wilson, who left the CIA in early 2006, finished, Waxman declared, "We need an investigation. This is not about Scooter Libby and not just about Valerie Plame Wilson." Waxman was right in that the Libby trial did not answer all the questions about the leak affair, especially those about the roles of Bush administration officials other than Libby. How did Cheney learn of Valerie Wilson's employment at the Counterproliferation Division and what did he do with that information? How did Karl Rove learn of her CIA connection? How did Rove manage to keep his job after the White House declared anyone involved in the leak would be fired? (Rove confirmed Armitage's leak to Novak and leaked information about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment to Matt Cooper, then of Time.) What did Bush know about Cheney's and Rove's actions? What did Bush do in response to the disclosure that Rove had leaked and had falsely claimed to White House press secretary Scott McClellan that he wasn't involved in the leak?

Representative Tom Davis, the senior Republican on the committee, seemed rather unhappy about the prospect of a committee inquiry and noted that Fitzgerald already had investigated the leak for years. Fitzgerald's mission, though, was to determine if a crime had been committed. Not all wrongdoing in Washington is criminal. Valerie Wilson's presence at the hearing was a reminder that White House officials (beyond Libby) engaged in improper conduct (which possibly threatened national security) and lied about it--while their comrades in the commentariat spinned away to distort the public debate.

The world's most famous CIA officer finally had her say in public. Her testimony showed that critical parts of the leak story remain unknown. Given that she and her husband are pursuing a civil lawsuit against the leakers (Rove, Libby, Armitage, Cheney and others), that she is battling the CIA to publish her memoirs, and that Waxman is considering mounting a congressional investigation, the tale of the CIA officer outed into the cold is not yet done.

******
Click to expand...
 
What does the CIA know about these things Care , get real.

we all KNOW Dixie is the final arbitor of weather shes covert or not.

Dixie and Victoria Toensng are the only ones who really know
 
we all KNOW Dixie is the final arbitor of weather shes covert or not.

Nope... I never claimed I had determined anything. Read what I posted again, and try to comprehend it. The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald was who determined Plame was not eligible for protection under the law regarding covert CIA operatives. I am merely relaying that finding here, it's not my determination, it is the special prosecutor's.
 
FITZY DID NOT IN ANY WAY CLEAR ANYONE FROM LEAKING THIS INFORMATION....

He cleared everyone from allegations they violated the Covert Operative law, which is what was accused. The law in question did not apply to Plame, it's as simple as that, and you really need to get used to it. We can go round and round about who "outed" Plame first, or why, or how, but the bottom line is, this wasn't a violation of the law in any way, shape, or form. This is not MY determination, it is Patrick Fitzgerald's, and you will have to live with it, whether you like it or agree with it or not. So Sorry!
 
Desh said:
The Cia Said Under Oath She Was Covert!
Click to expand...

Desh, honey, I can be "covert" ...you can be "covert" ...anyone can be "covert!" This has nothing to do with the federal law regarding the disclosure of covert operatives identities. Plame did not meet the qualifications for consideration under that law, Fitzgerald made this determination after years of investigating it. I'm really sorry about that, I know you really wanted that to be the case, and apparently you are still wanting to create that illusion to fool people, but it's simply a factual inaccuracy.
 
WAXMAN: The meeting of the committee will come to order.

Today the committee is holding a hearing to examine how the White House handles highly classified information.

In June and July 2003, one of the nation's most carefully guarded secrets, the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, was repeatedly revealed by White House officials to members of the media. This was an extraordinarily serious breach of our national security.

President George W. Bush's father, the former President Bush, said, and I quote, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who expose the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

Today, we'll be asking three questions. One, how did such a serious violation of our national security occur? Two, did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred? And three, what changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from occurring?

For more than three years a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak for its criminal implications. By definition, Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation had an extremely narrow criminal focus. It did not answer the broader policy questions raised by the release of Miss Wilson's identity. Nor did it seek to ascribe responsibility outside of the narrow confines of the criminal law.

As the chief investigative committee of the House of Representatives, our role is fundamentally different that Mr. Fitzgerald's. It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is our job to understand what went wrong and to insist on accountability and to make recommendations for future -- to avoid future abuses.

WAXMAN: And we begin that process today.

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under ***Executive Order 12958.***

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

WAXMAN: Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

WAXMAN: Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point.

Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably. And we're confident she will uphold it again today.

Well, that concludes the characterizations that the CIA is permitting us to make today. But to these comments, I want to add a personal note.

For many in politics, praising the troops and those who defend our freedom is second nature. Sometimes it's done in sincerity and sometimes it's done with cynicism, but almost always we don't really know who the people are, we don't know who those people are that are out there. They are abstract heroes, whether serving in the armed services or whether they're serving in the CIA.

WAXMAN: Two weeks ago, this committee met some real heroes face- to-face when we went to visit Walter Reed. Every member was appalled at what we learned: Our treatment of the troops didn't match our rhetoric.

Thankfully, Mrs. Wilson hasn't suffered physical harm and faces much more favorable circumstances now than some of the troops, some of the soldiers, that we met last week.

But she, too, has been one of those people fighting to protect our freedom. And she, like thousands of others, was serving our country bravely and anonymously.

She didn't ask that her identity be revealed, but it was, repeatedly. And that was an inexcusable breach of the responsibilities our country owes to her. Once again, our actions did not match our rhetoric.

I want to thank Mrs. Wilson for the tremendous service she gave to our country and recognize the remarkable personal sacrifices she and countless others have made to protect our national security.

You and your colleagues perform truly heroic work. And what happened to you not only should never have happened, but we should all work to make sure it never happens again.

Thank you very much.
 
She didn't ask that her identity be revealed, but it was, repeatedly. And that was an inexcusable breach of the responsibilities our country owes to her.

Maybe so, but it wasn't illegal, and no law was violated. You can squawk and cry, and re-post hearing testimony all you like, that doesn't change the facts of the case, or the fact that the special prosecutor made this determination.
 
wrong AGAIN DIXIE....this is from the transcript above which i had already underlined but i guess you chose to ignore it....

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under ***Executive Order 12958.***

Executive Order
Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958,
As Amended, Classified National Security Information




By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows:

"Classified National Security Information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nations progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nations security remains a priority.

NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART 1--ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION

Sec. 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classi-fication authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(c) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

(1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order.

Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.

(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or the senior agency official described in section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.

(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position title.

(d) Original classification authorities must receive training in original classification as provided in this order and its implementing directives. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and of the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be brought against an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.

(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the infor-mation shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. If it is not clear which agency has classification responsibility for this information, it shall be sent to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. The Director shall determine the agency having primary subject matter interest and forward the information, with appropriate recommendations, to that agency for a classification determination.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or pro-tection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or

(h) weapons of mass destruction.

Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification. (a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall attempt to establish a specific date or event for declassification based upon the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. Upon reaching the date or event, the information shall be automatically declassified. The date or event shall not exceed the time frame established in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classi-fication authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it shall be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision. All information classified under this section shall be subject to section 3.3 of this order if it is contained in records of permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code.

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.

(d) Information marked for an indefinite duration of classification under predecessor orders, for example, marked as "Originating Agencys Determination Required," or information classified under predecessor orders that contains no declassification instructions shall be declassified in accordance with part 3 of this order.

Sec. 1.6. Identification and Markings. (a) At the time of original classification, the following shall appear on the face of each classified document, or shall be applied to other classified media in an appropriate manner:

(1) one of the three classification levels defined in section 1.2 of this order;

(2) the identity, by name or personal identifier and position, of the original classification authority;

(3) the agency and office of origin, if not otherwise evident;

(4) declassification instructions, which shall indicate one of the following:

(A) the date or event for declassification, as prescribed in section 1.5(a) or section 1.5(c);

(B) the date that is 10 years from the date of original classification, as prescribed in section 1.5(b); or

(C) the date that is up to 25 years from the date of original classification, as prescribed in section 1.5 (b); and

(5) a concise reason for classification that, at a minimum, cites the applicable classification categories in section 1.4

(b) Specific information described in paragraph (a) of this section may be excluded if it would reveal additional classified information.

(c) With respect to each classified document, the agency originating the document shall, by marking or other means, indicate which portions are classified, with the applicable classification level, and which portions are unclassified. In accordance with standards prescribed in directives issued under this order, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office may grant waivers of this requirement. The Director shall revoke any waiver upon a finding of abuse.

(d) Markings implementing the provisions of this order, including abbreviations and requirements to safeguard classified working papers, shall conform to the standards prescribed in implementing directives issued pursuant to this order.

(e) Foreign government information shall retain its original classification markings or shall be assigned a U.S. classification that provides a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the entity that furnished the information. Foreign government information retaining its original classification markings need not be assigned a U.S. classification marking provided that the responsible agency determines that the foreign government markings are adequate to meet the purposes served by U.S. classification markings.

(f) Information assigned a level of classification under this or predecessor orders shall be considered as classified at that level of classification despite the omission of other required markings. Whenever such information is used in the derivative classification process or is reviewed for possible declassification, holders of such information shall coordinate with an appropriate classification authority for the application of omitted markings.

(g) The classification authority shall, whenever practicable, use a classified addendum whenever classified information constitutes a small portion of an otherwise unclassified document.

(h) Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification.

continued... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html
Click to expand...
 
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under ***Executive Order 12958.***

I understand this, she worked for the CIA, and all information about everyone who works for the CIA is classified information prohibited from disclosure. Wilson may have also worked "undercover" but this does not make her a "covert CIA operative" covered by the statute regarding them. Because Henry Waxman said something, doesn't make it empirical fact. You guys are manipulating and conjuring up all sorts of perceptions here, and they are just not grounded in legal validity.

Why won't you answer my simple question? I asked you several posts back, why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did not hand down some indictment on the actual "outing" of Plame? If things were as crystal clear as you are claiming, it seems he would have had no problem doing so, but that didn't happen, did it? NO! IT DIDN'T! And WHY? Well, maybe because no LAW was broken?

You simply don't want to accept that truth here, you want to continue trying to muster up some more smoke and pretend there is an inferno, because that's really about all you have left here. I figure in another few weeks, we'll have some trumped up bogus NY Times story about how Fitzgerald has ties with Haliburton or some shit, just so you can keep propping up you illusions. Most sane, reasonable, and rational people have moved on with their lives, and don't really give a damn about this anymore, but you and the kooky fringe left are going to milk it for all it's worth as long as you can get away with it, and then some.

It's pathetic!
 
why would Waxman state that DCI Hayden had reveiwed his statement for material accuracy - in which he clearly stated that Plame WAS covert at the time of the Novak article - if that were not the case? ANd why would Hayden - an administration man- then, allow Waxman to say something like that if it were not materially accurate?
 
dixie, dixie, dixie....
The Grand Jury Investigation indictment of Libby states:

“ Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.[17]
 
also, General Hayden, the new Director of the CIA affirmed that Valerie plame was an undercover agent for the cia and had done undercover work OVERSEAS within the last 5 years. PERIOD....

she was not an analyst and she was a cia covert intelligence officer.
 
I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.
Click to expand...

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under ***Executive Order 12958.***

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

WAXMAN: Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.
Click to expand...

that above kills your babble!
 
Care4all said:
dixie, dixie, dixie....
The Grand Jury Investigation indictment of Libby states:

“ Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.[17]
Click to expand...

And what was Libby found guilty of, please?
 
why would Waxman state that DCI Hayden had reveiwed his statement for material accuracy - in which he clearly stated that Plame WAS covert at the time of the Novak article - if that were not the case?

Because Waxman, like you and Care, is a political opportunist and pinhead liberal with an agenda. That's why!

ANd why would Hayden - an administration man- then, allow Waxman to say something like that if it were not materially accurate?

Oh, it can 'materially accurate' all day long, it just isn't illegal according to the law. If it had been, someone would have been indicted, tried, and convicted for it, and they weren't. As I said, everyone who works for the CIA, their information regarding what they do is confidential and classified information. Novak didn't reveal what Plame did for the CIA, as far as I know. In fact, there are still aspects of Plame's job with the CIA that haven't been disclosed, so this has nothing to do with revealing she worked for the CIA.

You are trying to tie two ropes together from across the room, and it just won't work. It's not a crime to say Plame works for the CIA, it is a crime to reveal her actual job, but no one did that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top