Oct 28, 2005
Scooter Libby Gets Indicted
Not a"Little Rascals" short. Story here.
comments powered by Disqus
More Comments:
William J. Stepp - 10/30/2005
Libby has nothing to worry about?
He is likely to have huge legal bills, possibly large fines and might get a year or so in the Big House, even with a plea bargain.
At least that's what a couple lawyers said.
The CIA is a criminal organization, so I'm not shedding any tears that Plame's received death threats. No one forced her to work for it.
I hope anyone with a list of CIA undercover operatives publishes it.
Plame also contributed $1,000 to ghe Gore campaign under her own name and listed a CIA front company as her employer. She was also pictured in Vanity Fair. No one needed to out her--she did it herself.
Bill Woolsey - 10/30/2005
From Washingon Monthly:
"CIA spokesman Bill Harlow] said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."
I saw the 1994 date--that is when Agee gave up a bunch of operative names. Does that mean that Plame is no longer undercover? Isn't it a judgement call? For example, suppose the Mossad knows that John Q. Spy works as an undercover operative for the CIA. Does that mean that he is no longer useful for spying on Islamists? It becomes a bit different when his name is splashed all over the front page. In my view, to claim that the Mossad knows about John Q. Spy is hardly a defense when one gets the name put on the front page of the NY Times and so gives it up to Al Quaeda along with Mossad.
As for the five year rule, at least some people have argued that if Plame made any overseas trip in the last five years as an energy analysis for then front-company employer, then the law applies. She doesn't have to be officially "based" overseas.
As I have explained in another thread, Libby has nothing to worry about because he wasn't giving up Libby's name to harm the U.S. On the contrary, his purpose was an inteligence operation against a nest of traitors within the CIA working against Team America World Police. As the administration has explained, he is a devoted public servant working for the good of America!
Bill Woolsey - 10/30/2005
I suppose it is possible that Plame is an undercover agent, but Libby isn't subject to prosecution under the relevant law because of of an "overseas" proviso and a five year limit.
How exactly did Plame "give up" her undercover status in 1994? As far as I can tell, moving back to the U.S. in 1997 is irrelevant as to whever or not she had undercover status.
I would suggest calling up the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and other such newsources who have failed to figure out the clear truth that you have discovered.
The reporting I have seen is basically that Republican toadies who are claiming that Plame wasn't undercover.
The "problem" generally reported in convicting Libby is in proving that he knew she was undercover.
Bill Woolsey - 10/30/2005
I apologize for my failure to use a journalistic approach. I don't really believe that Plame is a traitor, but rather consider Libby one. I have not even considered whether he could be convicted as a traitor according to the U.S. Constitution. How is that relevant.
William J. Stepp - 10/30/2005
I think you are the one who should pay more attention to the facts.
First, Valerie Plame gave up her covert status in 1994. According to Joe Wilson, in his book _The Politics of Truth_, he and VP returned to the U.S. from an overseas assignment in June 1997.
Victoria Toensing, the former deputy assistant AG and one of the drafters of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, said it covers overseas undercover agents within the last five years, which the leaker has to know and reveal intentionally.
The reason Fitzgerald indicted Libby for lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice instead of violating the 1982 Act is crystal clear.
There was no crime.
Case closed.
William Marina - 10/30/2005
Dear Mr. Woolsey,
Or, should I say "wool" headed?
Have you ever read the American Constitution's definition of "Treason?"
It is, without doubt, among the clearest and fairest in the world, and thank goodness, with so many people around who would in some McCarthyesque fashion abuse its clear definitions.
Regards, William Marina
Bill Woolsey - 10/29/2005
You should follow the story a bit more closely.
Plame was a covert officer. She had a cover as an employee of a CIA front company. Such people do have desks at the CIA where they work for years at a time. When needed, they go overseas and pretend to be an employee of some front company. (Admittedly, it makes having a mole in the CIA office building very valuable. Why doesn't the CIA make that ineffective by keeping their covert agents away from Headquarters?)
Some have claimed that her cover was already in question and that if she was sent on another mission, it would be an an embassy employee with diplomatic immunity. But those people are also covert agents. It is just a less risky position.
And now that the neo-conmen have moved her cover from the questionable to the completely blown, there is no reason why she cannot move into a new career as celebrity.
She has claimed she has received some death threats. She may be having second thoughts about the celebrity career shift.
As for who is in danger, it would be everyone who worked with Plame--generally not CIA agents but rather CIA assets. Presumably, foreigners that she had "corrupted" into providing intelligence to the U.S.
While some outsiders (supposedly Russian intelligence) would already "know," that might not be everyone who VP's associates have sold out. And so, some foreigners might die because they sold out other foreigners in order to provide the U.S. with information about weapons of mass destruction.
But, hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelete.
Bill Woolsey - 10/29/2005
Valerie Plame was a traitor!
She, like many other traitors within the U.S. government, was secretly working against Team America--World Police, working against our effort to destroy every openly and explicitly anti-American regime in the world. That includes especially the "Axis of Evil."
There are many outside the U.S. government opposing that goal. Unfortunately, it is on the whole desirable to fool them. For example, the Security Council of the UN includes Russia, China, and France. We have to use disinformation to keep them off balance or else they will oppose Team America.
On top of that, we have all of the left-liberals in the media and Academia in the U.S. Who knows what kind of confusion they will spread among the America people. We need good disinformation to keep them off balance. (Pretending that
the purpose of all of this is to promote democracy and women's rights
is at the key element of that disinformation campaign.)
Oh, and then there are the America people. Just like the American people before WW2 failed to understand the need to confront the real Axis powers--especially Nazi Germany--so that the great hero FDR had to trick them into hostilities, today's American people might not understand the need to use our sole-superpower status to wipe out every anti-American regime during this window of opportunity. So a little disinformation for average voters is justified.
The CIA (and the rest of the intelligence community) is supposed to help with these activities. But some of them work against it--effectively working for the axis of evil!
Valerie Plame was one such traitor. She sends her husband to Niger to discredit one of the disinformation stories that was being used. Since the CIA already knew that the story was almost certainly bogus, what was the point of sending her husband? It was step one in a plan to interfere in the disinformation plan and help the Axis of Evil! Send him so that he can later go public.
While it probably would have been best to just fire her, the time wasn't quite ripe for such an open approach. It was necessary to use a counter-intelligence operation against her. And so, her cover was exposed and out she goes.
By the way, anyone else notice that Miller kept her job as long as she helped obstruct justice. When she spilled the beans on Libby, she was let go. I hope all the other reporters get the message on that one.
O.K. I know I sometimes get a bit paranoid. But I think something like the above is closer to the perspective of the neo-con cabal than either the notion that they were getting even with the Amb. Wilson by going after his wife or else some really incredible story that they were hoping this leak would somehow cover up complicity in the forgery of the documents.
Think about it. They don't trust the CIA and haven't for years. This is the Team B crowd. The Iran-Contra crooks. And now, Plamegate. Should it be a surprise that they would use counter-intelligence ops against their enemies within the CIA?
William J. Stepp - 10/29/2005
VP was not a covert agent. She had a desk job in Langley.
My read is that outting her was not an actual crime, even under the statute in question.
Her picture has since appeared in _Vanity Fair_
and other places, and Joe Wilson is now suing, evidently. They are now about getting some $ out of the taxpayers and for what?
If U.S. government operatives working in foreign countries get killed or arested or deported because somone in the government rats on someone else in the government, why would libertarians shed any tears?
Let the rats go down on the sinking ship, and hope it sinks quickly!
Aeon J. Skoble - 10/29/2005
One difference is, Martha's alleged crimes weren't goint to get anyone killed. From a libertarian view, one could easily make the case that Martha wasn't doing anything wrong, but that's a harder move for Libby. Compromising a covert agent's cover can get people killed, and to do it just to aggravate your domestic political opposition is seriously irresponsible. I felt bad that Martha had to do time, even though I'm not especially a fan, but Libby will deserve whatever he gets.
William J. Stepp - 10/29/2005
My understanding is that Scooter was indicted for lying to the grand jury, not for outting Valerie Plame, which might not be a crime.
This is a very serious offense in the current legal environment, although from a libertarian perspective it's not a crime.
Recall that Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted for lying to the Feds, not for insider trading.
(Instead of going to prison, Martha should have been awarded a Spooner-Tucker Prize for Liberty.)
OTOH, Scooter is an insider in one of the worst regimes in American history (top ten yet?), so it's hard to work up any sympathy for him.
I just saw someone down the street who predicted Scooter will do one year when the dust settles.
Any takers?
Aeon J. Skoble - 10/28/2005
Not to get overly wonky, but as I understood it, Libby is in hot water for his role in "outing" an undercover agent to make domestic political hay. It's probably a good thing, then, that he's in trouble now. Blowing a cover isn't the same thing as whistleblowing.
Anthony Gregory - 10/28/2005
Yes, I too was not depressed about either event. And yet, in both cases there was also a downside. In the case of Clinton, he was impeached for the very least of his transgressions. In the case of Fitzmas, the bad guys are getting their due for disclosing government secrets, which are not clearly things libertarians should be happy about in the first place.
David T. Beito - 10/28/2005
Some of my liberal colleagues are prancing around like peacocks in great joy at this news...in contrast to several years ago when they were positvely funereal on the day Clinton was impeached. I am probably the only member of the department who was not depressed about either of these events.