Ex-C.I.A. Officer Sues Cheney and Others Over Leak

[Donald L.]

Ex-C.I.A. Officer Sues Cheney and Others Over Leak (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/washington/14leak.html?hp&ex=1152849600&en=b516bf84fcc224a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Valerie Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, filed suit on Thursday against Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Cheney’s former top aide and the senior presidential adviser Karl Rove, charging they had conspired to violate their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court, accused Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove and the former Cheney aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., of conspiring to destroy Ms. Wilson’s career by leaking her identity as an undercover C.I.A. operative to the press. It says the three men had conspired to punish Mr. Wilson for his public assertions that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[Stroker Ace]

sweet! let's hear some "blah blah dirty democrat spin election year" talking points!

[Linoleum]

For a civil case? I can't imagine anything interesting happening before the election is well over.

[Saber Cherry]

She's an ex-officer? Did she quit, or get booted?

[Talisker]

She's an ex-officer? Did she quit, or get booted?
Uh, you haven't heard about this whole deal?

[JMR]

Uh, you haven't heard about this whole deal?

Reminds me of watching HBO's Rome and asking "Did Ceaser really get killed on the Senate floor?" Some of us just aren't up to speed with current events =(

[Raife]

Did that Cuban Missile Crisis issue ever get resolved?

[Saber Cherry]

Uh, you haven't heard about this whole deal?

I've heard about it, mainly through a friend of mine who is fed hardcore-conservative lies by his father. But I don't really know any specifics. The fact that Valerie is an ex-agent is news to me. I know that her name was leaked to the press and etc., but I was under the impression that she was not in a sensitive undercover role, so it really didn't matter. According to my friend, her husband used to introduce her at parties as a CIA officer. And actually... I've heard and read a lot about the case... and never once parsed a mention of dismissal.

[Andrew Mayer]

Wow, that's an impressive conservative game of telephone!

She was a covert operative, although one who worked primarily at the CIA headquarters. But blowing her cover did shut down an entire company that was actually a CIA front.

The "parties" part is sort of a melange of a bunch of crap that's been thrown up about whether she was introduced to people as "Plame" or "Wilson".

[Saber Cherry]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/washington/14leak.html?hp&ex=1152936000&en=09939cc58b0d6b6a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Front page of the NYTimes today, about Valerie suing because her rights were violated. Is there any mention of Valerie Wilson being fired, quitting, or otherwise being an ex-agent? No. And if I were suing, I would be sure to mention damages in the lawsuit. Unless someone shows me a source, I have no reason to believe that it is true.

[Rob Beschizza]

The lawsuit's purpose is to get the white house into discovery. That is all.

[Donald L.]

Did you Google or Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame) her name?


Front page of the NYTimes today, about Valerie suing because her rights were violated. Is there any mention of Valerie Wilson being fired, quitting, or otherwise being an ex-agent? No.

CIA Leak Case Source No. 1 Still a Mystery (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-novak13jul13,0,4652262.story?coll=la-home-nation)

Last month, Wilson and Plame — who retired from the CIA last year, saying that her career had been ruined by Novak's disclosure — indicated through their lawyer that they were considering legal action against Rove and other officials.


And if I were suing, I would be sure to mention damages in the lawsuit. Unless someone shows me a source, I have no reason to believe that it is true.

Plame and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, are believed to be considering a civil suit against White House officials, in part to get to the bottom of the mystery. But such a suit faces a number of legal obstacles; depending on the basis for the suit, it may have to be filed by Friday to comply with a three-year statute of limitations.

[Saber Cherry]

Did you Google or Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame) her name?


Thanks, Donald. And no, I didn't. I was actually more annoyed at people's superciliality than interested in the celeb news, but it is rather amusing to me that she resigned (rather than being fired).

[Midnight Son]

She looks pretty good for an older Mata Hari....

[Brian Rucker]

MHILF?

[Stroker Ace]

Thanks, Donald. And no, I didn't. I was actually more annoyed at people's superciliality than interested in the celeb news, but it is rather amusing to me that she resigned (rather than being fired).Why would she be fired?

[Lizard_King]

Thanks, Donald. And no, I didn't. I was actually more annoyed at people's superciliality than interested in the celeb news, but it is rather amusing to me that she resigned (rather than being fired).
More importantly, why is that amusing?

By what measure is this "celeb news"?

And what on earth is "superciliality"?


You've tipped your hand.

[Stroker Ace]

I'm guessing superciliousness?

[Saber Cherry]

Why would she be fired?

I have no idea. But without being fired, there are no damages, and thus no basis for a lawsuit.

More importantly, why is that amusing?

Because there's a claim that she suffered from the disclosure of her identity, but it appears that any suffering was self-inflicted, if she left voluntarily... unless she was being harassed, or something.

By what measure is this "celeb news"?

The criminal offenses, potential criminal cases, lies, cover-ups, and denials from the White House were major news. The actions of the Wilsons since then are not really important, won't really accomplish anything, and are only followed because they are famous.

And what on earth is "superciliality"?

I'm guessing superciliousness?

'ousness' is the accepted form, but 'ousness' and 'ousity' sound awkward to me, so sometimes I use endings that flow better, in a penalty-free environment.

You've tipped your hand.

Not sure what that means.

[Lizard_King]

I have no idea. But without being fired, there are no damages, and thus no basis for a lawsuit.
The lawsuit wouldn't be a wrongful termination one against the CIA; it would be a lawsuit against the Bush cronies directly who compromised her position and caused her to be unfit for work. Any number of grounds are available for such a suit, depending on what exactly her responsibilities were. It's not a good case, of course, but the idea is not so much to win but to keep the issue in the public eye until at least the next election.

Because there's a claim that she suffered from the disclosure of her identity, but it appears that any suffering was self-inflicted, if she left voluntarily... unless she was being harassed, or something.
That's idiotic. People quit their jobs all the time when they've been wronged, and (once again) the hostility isn't between her and her work environment per se. The issue isn't her being harassed, or being incompetent, or any conventional work related grievance. It's her identity as a CIA operative being exposed by American citizens who are actually, literally in violation of national security protocol and possibly treasonous in a very literal, non-NYT kind of way, particularly because they knew precisely what they were doing and were exacting retribution in an exceptionally ruthless and premeditated fashion.

The criminal offenses, potential criminal cases, lies, cover-ups, and denials from the White House were major news. The actions of the Wilsons since then are not really important, won't really accomplish anything, and are only followed because they are famous.
That doesn't make them Bennifer or Brangelina. The fact remains that this issue has not been resolved. No one of consequence who had a hand in it has paid for his crime. Given the vast hypocrisy of the sort of people we are talking about (who continually lecture the American people and anyone who dares disagree with them about how whatever action they are engaged in is a matter of national security, irrespective of its legitimacy otherwise) it is in the public interest for this story to be kept in the papers until every last detail is wrapped up.


'ousness' is the accepted form, but 'ousness' and 'ousity' sound awkward to me, so sometimes I use endings that flow better, in a penalty-free environment.
Huh. I generally prefer to use words that actually exist as a default, but, hey, great initiative. You must be one hell of a scrabble player.

Not sure what that means.
Well, let's see. Generally when someone posts responses ripped from sko less articulate version of National Review, they are doing more than hanging out with their friend's conservative dad. In this case, you pled ignorance apart from that, and then went on to do exactly what the most shameless "conservative" commentators do (and, not incidentally, their opposites as well). Attack with vague insinuations based on nothing, and when that fails, go straight for the "tempest in a teapot" approach. I'm surprised you skipped the ad hominems.

Plame is a big deal. What was done to her and her husband matters. When this issue first arose, I was extremely skeptical, not least because I believed Bush's men to be more competent with their dirty tricks. History has proved me wrong there, again and again; the least one can do is pay attention until these matters are resolved to some degree.

[Ed Solomon]

Because there's a claim that she suffered from the disclosure of her identity, but it appears that any suffering was self-inflicted, if she left voluntarily... unless she was being harassed, or something.
Yeah, why couldn't she have sucked it up and continued her job as a covert agent after her cover was blown?

Wait a minute, what does covert mean again?

[Matthew Gallant]

But without being fired, there are no damages
That's some serious internet lawyerin' right there. Right up there with "If he's a cop, he has to tell you."

[Damien Falgoust]

I have no idea. But without being fired, there are no damages, and thus no basis for a lawsuit. This right here? Total bullshit.

Got news for you sparky: above a certain pay grade, no one ever gets fired. You're asked to resign, and it's more of a command than a request.

The courts recognize this. Indeed, there are wrongful termination cases where the individual was given shittier and shittier assignments until they resigned. You don't need a pink slip to bring a successful lawsuit.

[Damien Falgoust]

She was a covert operative, although one who worked primarily at the CIA headquarters.
This is something I've always wondered: how can you be covert and still go to work at Langley? If anyone observes you on the way to work, it isn't like they'll think you were the flower delivery person or something.

[MikeJ]

...above a certain pay grade, no one ever gets fired.


Except in Robocop.

[forgeforsaken]

Except in Robocop.

"Dick, you're fired!"

Any chance of life imitating art?

[Midnight Son]

Yeah, why couldn't she have sucked it up and continued her job as a covert agent after her cover was blown?


You like her too? ;-)

[Andrew Mayer]

This is something I've always wondered: how can you be covert and still go to work at Langley? If anyone observes you on the way to work, it isn't like they'll think you were the flower delivery person or something.

I don't think she was James bond. Most of her work was financial and business oriented, so she had a desk and a phone and transacted buisiness that way.

I'm guessing, but it's pretty obvious that the most important keep that business undercover, even if you're only the accountant or somesuch. If you were a CIA front wouldn't you want the person writing your CIA checks to have covert status?

Once her cover is blown every target who worked with that company goes to ground. And hey, why not kill those now known agents in the field while you're at it?

[Damien Falgoust]

I still don't see why she would work at the HQ. Why wouldn't she just rent some nondescript office space?

I'm just having trouble reconciling the notion that "the fact that I work at the CIA is a secret" with the fact of "I walk into CIA headquarters every single day."

[forgeforsaken]

But really who would see her going and coming from HQ other than other CIA employees. How many people do you know from outside of work that have even been to your office? Unless you were following her, you'd have no idea if she worked in some nondescript office or CIA hq.

[Damien Falgoust]

I'd think a covert operative might be a little more concerned about being followed than an average person. Plus, there's the coincidence factor: someone quite by accident sees her pulling into Langley.

It just seems like they're saying "yeah, she's covert, but we're making absolutely no fucking effort to keep her job here a secret".

[foogla]

I assume casing Langley is suicidal.

[Lizard_King]

Got news for you sparky: above a certain pay grade, no one ever gets fired. You're asked to resign, and it's more of a command than a request.
As far as I know, Sparky has nothing to do with any of this. YOUR POST MAKES NO SENSE.

[Damien Falgoust]

My apologies to the poster named Sparky; hadn't thought of that!

[Steve Canyon]

My apologies to the poster named Sparky; hadn't thought of that!

In the future, use chuckles instead.

[shift6]

I'd think a covert operative might be a little more concerned about being followed than an average person. Plus, there's the coincidence factor: someone quite by accident sees her pulling into Langley.

It just seems like they're saying "yeah, she's covert, but we're making absolutely no fucking effort to keep her job here a secret".
Her job may have been covert while her employer is not. She's going to Langley every day (sez the guy who has staked out her house); is she an analyst of sub-Saharan Africa or is she one of the three people with the key to launch nukes?

[Matthew Gallant]

Question: the janitors, office equipment contractors, etc. who work at Langley-- are they CIA Agents? I know the guys who deliver Ace Tomatoes to the cafeteria workers definitely are, but I'm not so sure about the lunch ladies themselves.

I just want to know who should be on the list for access to the super-secret parking garage with an underground tunnel five miles away, so nobody sees that they're driving to the CIA every day and kills their sloppy joe slingin' ass.

[shift6]

Question: the janitors, office equipment contractors, etc. who work at Langley-- are they CIA Agents?
Yes, but they are in the "support service", not the "clandestine service".

http://www.cia.gov/employment/professional.html
http://www.cia.gov/employment/clandestine.html

[Matthew Gallant]

Yes, but they are in the "support service", not the "clandestine service".
OR ARE THEY???

[Matthew Gallant]

Sorry if this seems ridiculous, but I assure you it's not any less ridiculous than the line of thinking that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent because Robert Novak could have suspected it, and being told she really really was by his source, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and whoever else was just a shortcut for finding out who Wilson was married to and following her to work for a few days.

Because covert agents are known for their flimsy covers and their daily parades through the front door of Langley with a marching band, waving flags that read "It's fun to be covert!"

[Damien Falgoust]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA. Fuck you, kemosabe.

I never said that Plame wasn't covert, or that Novak and company were just fine in releasing her name, or anything like that at all. Indeed, as a pretty strong "rule of law" guy, I think unauthorized leakers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I made a simple query about one aspect of CIA practice that struck me as odd (and, frankly, still strikes me as odd). Are we so far gone down the road of partisanship that even simple factual queries are deemed to have political content?

[Andrew Mayer]

Well, regardless, you don't get to define what is "covert", or "covert enough".

The operative status was given to her by the agency, and that is the status she had at the time that she was outed as an agent.

I think the reason it's a partisan issue that it's kind of a mind-fuck to have the conservative wing both preaching that we should pitch all our freedoms into the "time of war" blender, but then start bitching that someone isn't covert enough when their leaders blow her cover for purely partisan political reasons.

[Damien Falgoust]

Well, regardless, you don't get to define what is "covert", or "covert enough".

The operative status was given to her by the agency, and that is the status she had at the time that she was outed as an agent. I never said I did. Jesus Tapdancing Christ.

In my last post, I clearly stated that since she was designated as covert, those who outed her should be prosecuted.

How hard is this to grasp? One can still believe that the law should be followed while simultaneously wondering whether CIA categorizations make any damned sense.

I think the reason it's a partisan issue that it's kind of a mind-fuck to have the conservative wing both preaching that we should pitch all our freedoms into the "time of war" blender, but then start bitching that someone isn't covert enough when their leaders blow her cover for purely partisan political reasons. I had no idea I was a spokesman for the "conservative wing," or that I had preached in favor of pitching our freedoms into the war blender, or any other goddamned thing. Please do link to where I've done so. I also had no idea I was "bitching" that Plame wasn't covert enough; I thought my posts made it reasonably clear that I simply thought the classification was odd.

In the future, I guess I'll just ride along with the hive-mind and not question any aspects of a news story, ever. Apparently, thinking critically about a story makes you a partisan hack. Who knew?