Imagine you are a reporter with a well respected newspaper. Now, imagine that you learn the identity of a possible CIA operative. If true, you feel that the story you are working on cannot be told accurately without revealing that this individual is an employee of the CIA.
So, what do you do?
You call all your sources that might be able to confirm this person works at the CIA. One of those sources is the spokesperson at Central Intelligence. As an experienced reporter, you know that the spokesman may not be able to confirm the person works there. They can confirm that Porter Goss is the DCI. They can confirm that the head of food services works there. But they can’t go much further than that.
What you are really doing is trying to get a feel for the answer. Will the spokesman outright deny it? Will he laugh in your face? Will he give you a warning? If he gives you a warning, that will be almost as good as a confirmation.
Now, imagine that you are a spokesperson at the CIA. Your job is to field questions from the press. Every so often you field a question about whether a certain individual is an employee of the agency. Sometimes the individual is not an employee. But when the individual is an employee, it is a matter of great concern. How did the reporter discover this information?
Now your job kicks into another gear. You now have two immediate tasks. Your first task is to protect the employee’s cover. Your second task is to discover the source of the leak. We can watch this process unfold by reading the following:
Novak called Harlow with a story. His story was that Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife was an employee of the agency and that she had authorized her husband’s trip to Niger. Was this true?
Harlow could not confirm outright that she worked at the agency. But he didn’t deny it either. Instead, he told Novak he had his story wrong, and that if he decided to publish his story anyway, he should not use her name (and blow her cover).
This is all the non-denial denial Novak was hoping for. For Novak, it amounted to a confirmation that Valerie Plame was an employee of the CIA. It was also a confirmation that she was operating undercover. But it was not a confirmation of his underlying story.
After getting off the phone Harlow did the logical thing. He looked up Valerie Wilson’s files to see what her exact role was at the agency and what her role had been in the Niger trip. He then called Novak back:
If you called the CIA and asked whether I was an employee there, they would either deny it, or they would say they couldn’t confirm inquiries of that nature. But, you can be sure you would not get a call back to reiterate that my name should not be used in an article.
Novak now knew she was an employee, knew she was undercover, and knew the CIA was taking affirmative steps to protect her cover.
He also had some reason to doubt the veracity of the information that Rove, and others were giving him. But he blew her cover anyway.
But before Novak’s article even appeared, I assume the agency initiated some protocol. One of their undercover operative’s identities had been leaked to a big-foot Washington reporter. A potential damage assessment was in order. I don’t know what the CIA’s protocols are for such contingencies, but I am sure they have them. In some cases, the exposure of an operative could have devastating effects to national security and to foreign relations.
I’m even more certain that the CIA has protocols for when their operatives’ covers are actually blown.
In this case, it would probably involve going back into Valerie Wilsons file and making note of all the agents she had run in her 20 year history as a case officer. In some cases affirmative steps would be taken to protect those agents. In other cases it would be simply a matter of noting whether anything unusual happened to those agents. Did they disappear? Did they get fired or transferred. Were they no longer willing to serve as agents?
I assume that both Fitzgerald and the judges overseeing the Grand Jury are in possession of this damage report, and I have a feeling they are not too happy with what is contained in it.
…I am not so sure Fitzgerald does have a copy of the damage report that, as you say, the Agency must surely have produced, just as was done for Aldrich Ames’s treason.
But, as others have noted ever since the Brewster Jennings association became known nearly two years ago, it’s not so much other CIA agents whose covers were blown by Plame’s outing who are at risk, but rather those in foreign lands known by their governments to have had connections to those operatives. Disappearing a CIA agent risks retaliation; but who can do anything about the Pakistanis or Syrians or Iranians or Libyans who have been marched off into the local gulag or graveyard because of these revelations about Plame?
I try to use operative and agent correctly.
I use operative to mean a CIA employee and a case officer. These people recruit agents and pay them, but the agents are not our employees.
And you’re right, it’s not just Plame’s network of agents, but all the networks of agents that are associated with Brewster Jennings.
Let’s bring this down to the level of the reporting I used to do.
Admittedly, I was working at a small daily, so there never would have been a question of outing a CIA agent, but my editor certainly looked over my work (and not just mine) with an eye to legal ramifications.
My editor delved into every story I submitted. Each quote I used had to be verified (and–this I did not like and did not think proper–was not used unless the person quoted granted permission, even if the statement had been public). Everything I wrote was checked for accuracy.
And there were certain things My editor never would have let pass. For example, if I had stumbled accross the name of someone working undercover in a drug investigation, that editor would have made sure the name stayed out of the paper until the investigation was complete. Suppose I found that a certain police officer was coordinating a sting against corrupt contractor–again, my editor would not have let me publish the police officer’s name (in that context) until the sting were complete–even though “everyone” may have know that person was a police officer.
My point? Robert Novak does not have an editor. Nothing he writes goes through the sort of review that was required even at my small newspaper.
People complain about the blogs, that there is no check on them. Well, there is no check on Novak and he is in a position to commit much more mayhem than any one of us (and he has done so).
Novak is no better than the worst of us in the blogosphere, yet he is published in places where people assume fact-checking exists–making him worse than any of us, for people don’t feel they have to check on what he says.
And he is worse because he has no personal sense of responsibility for the good of his community and the people working to protect it. The newspaper I worked for might have disagreed with drug policy or thought that a sting was a bad idea–but it would never have allowed me to put them in danger because of such disagreement.
The newspapers that Novak is syndicated in obviously don’t care nearly as much about the people working undercover. Certainly, Novak does not.
Sorry I ranted so long!
has some kind of editorial oversight. I also assume his long distinguished career affords him a wider berth than most other reporters.
Actually, Novak does not have editorial oversight. He operates independently.
No matter his “long distinguished career,” the publications carrying him have an obligation to provide some degree of oversight.
They exercize none.
for this allegation?
The Chicago Sun-Times or Washington Post editors exercise no editorial oversight?
They really have the choice only to run the column or not.
The same is true of most syndicated columnists. As independent writers, they have control over their work–and generally own the copyright.
I will get you some of the details on this. There was a controversy a few months ago about an Ann Coulter column changed by one chain (or paper) running it. I don’t remember the details, but I think it is somewhat pertinent.
The question gets quite complicated. Give me some time and I will post a diary on it.
The copyright to Novak’s columns is held by Creators Syndicate. I’m not quite sure, but I think that means that papers running the column would have to get permission from Creators (from Novak, finally) in order to change anything.
Click here for my expansion on this.
…and–this I did not like and did not think proper–was not used unless the person quoted granted permission, even if the statement had been public…
So your editor, pardon me, was a sycophant. When I worked as an editor over reporters, I would never have made such an inappropriate requirement (guaranteed to wreck most investigative reporting), and as a reporter I would not long have continued working for an editor who imposed such a requirement.
As for putting undercover officers in danger, however, I agree. Up to a point. What if the officers were doing something illegal?
That’s why I gave up the job (and, frankly, why I am not a journalist–for it’s part of the job in way too many places. Meteor Blades, you have always been an ethical journalists but you also know that you are one of the rare ones). I couldn’t stand it when I was forced to delete quotes that had been made publicly–just so the paper could keep its buddy-buddy relationships with the powers of the town. I wouldn’t even have included mention of that here (for the other parts of what the editor was doing are what is important to my comment, and were appropriate–and he did the other only because he would lose his job if he did not) except that it rankles so much (even after 30 years). I just couldn’t resist.
Your question, “What if the officers were doing something illegal?” is a good one.
In that particular situation, I might not have been able to publish the name even then–again, it was that atmosphere that led me to leave the profession, and leave with a sour taste in my mouth.
Whistleblowing for the public good is an important activity, though much reviled. When we see wrong, we should make noise about it, no matter our profession. But that’s another discussion: Novak wasn’t doing that.
FYI: When I submit a letter to the editor at my local paper, the editor calls me up to make sure I’m who I say I am. And if I quote another source, he expects me to e-mail him the link to that source. He also frequently includes full WWW links in the published LTEs.
ALSO: I think we’re fairly careful as bloggers. Yesterday, for example, I got a report from someone. It included the private e-mail address of a major rightwing journalist. I elected to leave that address out of the report because I couldn’t verify that it was alright to publish it.
The other neat thing about writing on blogs is that readers tell us when we’ve gotten something wrong. And how … and that’s terrific.
And that’s as it should be.
One of the complaints about blogs is that they are not vetted. Well, I think we’ve taken that to heart and become careful and cautious.
But no one seems to care that Novak isn’t vetted. I suspect that, at every step along the line, each person is thinking that another is doing it.
When no one is.
Even assuming the report was received In camera, I doubt the CIA could reveal other than what you’ve noted here (compromised network – no names). The issue has always been the damage to our national security caused by the leak. Someone is guilty of treason. I’m hoping Fitzgerald is going after just “two witnesses”:
“No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court”. [Art III, Sec. 3.]
you can make a legal case for treason out of this. It’s not the two witness requirement that makes me think this either.
It comes down to intent.
But I’ll say it again. If that damage report shows that sources were liquidated, we have a strong case for negiligent homicide.
Art III Section 3 of the Constitution defines the only crime mentioned in the Constitution:
I think you can make a case that those who are proliferating nuclear weapons are enemies of the U.S., and that exposing a CIA agent and her cover company who were actively working to stop that proliferation is giving aid and comfort to those enemies.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think that to convict someone of treason there has to be a specific law implementing that provision of the Constitution and it has to be proven in ciurt that Novak violated it. But even in the absence of such a law or court action Novak is a Traitor.
That is beyond question factually and morally. The only thing a law or legal action would add to that is it would establish that the government should punish Novak for his crime.
Novak should be treated with the disdain he deserves, and his employers should be made to pay for not firing him. That includes the Chicago Sun, Creators Synicate who distributes his columnn, and whichever TV network permits him air time.
Novak is a disgrace to America and a typical Republican fatcat.
first of all I wasn’t thinking of Novak, but of his sources, as the person being tried for treason.
But even for Novak there would be a serious of hurdles. The first is defining our enemies under the law. Nuclear proliferators are not considered our enemies under the law.
I think you might be able to prosecute someone for treason for aiding the insurgency in Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. But even there, without a formal declaration of war there would be a defense.
In order to answer that question I’d have to look carefully at the Congressional authorizations for force in Iraq and Afghanistan, and authorizations for going after al-Qaeda.
There have been almost no American convicted of treason in our entire history. Normally, they charged with espionage, or some other lesser offense.
Indeed it is a short list.
I found this list of “People accused or convicted of being traitors”…I have no idea if it is inclusive or authentic. It does list one Karl Rove…
Wow, that’s a fascinating resource assuming that it is, as you say, authentic/inclusive.
I was looking at the “aid and comfort” provision. The War on Terror by definition includes “stateless enemies”. Plame/Wilson was working on intelligence related to the WOT, specifically WMD. If – BIG if – it is proven that as a result of the leak, anyone in the network was killed it meets the test. Comforting indeed for our enemies to know who has been tracking them.
Congress backed up the President’s declaration of a “War on Terror” with S.J.Res.23*, specifically including authorization under the War Powers Act:
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements–
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
*Thomas creates temporary links only.
Here’s what interests me about your narrative: the CIA official tells Novak his story is wrong, and warns him against publishing the name of a covert agent.
So he knows V.P. is a covert agent. He has a decision here: if he doesn’t at least refer to her relationship with Joseph Wilson, he has no story. But he’s been told that his story is wrong—that’s the red flag, or should be.
As a reporter, he must now reevaluate, and either get several more sources that say it’s right, and can explain to him why the CIA would be covering up that fact, or he has to rely on his previous source: who does he trust more?
I don’t think conscientious reporters go with this story unless satisfied that they have multiple trusted sources, and a good sense of why the CIA would be covering up. Also that the story is important enough to ignore the CIA’s warning not to print the name.
But partisan hack and media personality is a whole different story. Someone who is cultivating partisan administration and right wing sources goes with that, because that’s where the fat lecture fees and fat cat connections are. Someone whose media jobs depends on fame, and fame depends on being controversial and “breaking stories,” even if those stories turn out to be false, doesn’t blink. He goes with the story because no editor can touch him, he has his own audience.
And if the law is breathing on his neck, he can quickly turn state’s evidence, and get his cable network to run footage of him praying in church.
There’s a reason that Novak was the one to break this story. He doesn’t have the editorial oversight or work in a well established journalistic culture that the major newspapers and news magazines have, even given the great fall-off in fact checking. Or the investment these papers and magazines have in their reputations—as well as legal exposure, about which they remain vigiliant.
Something else that worries me:
In some cases affirmative steps would be taken to protect those agents. In other cases it would be simply a matter of noting whether anything unusual happened to those agents. Did they disappear? Did they get fired or transferred. Were they no longer willing to serve as agents?
Don’t these needed steps also run the risk of endangering V.P.’s contacts?
How does the C.I.A. run these checks carefully without risk?
When the CIA officer discovered that one of their agents had been outed, would they also do an investigation within their own agency to see how this information got out?
Did the CIA discover that her name could have been leaked out via the State Dept memo and handed that evidence to Fitzgerald?
I am just confused as to how Plame’s name left the CIA.
The United States has been in a state of war since 9/11 against Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda group, the perpetrators of the cowardly attack. The treachery of the President, his Cabinet members, advisors and Staff of State and Department of Defense, lies in the fact that intelligence has been manipulated to make a case for war against the sovereign state of Iraq. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld so eloquently stated: “because there were no targets in Afghanistan”.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has proved to abet the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq, North Africa, Europe and South East Asia. The Niger yellowcake forgery was a single component to manipulate the evidence for a case of war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The importance of Niger has been proven, by the backing of PM Blair and Premier Berlusconi in this intelligence plot. President Bush used it in the false statement in the State of the Union Address and Secretary of State used the false documentation before the world public stage at the UN Security Council.
IMHO, all persons who willingly and knowingly were part of this organized plot to deceive and lie to members of Congress, and the American People, are eligible to be accused of treason. Accusation will be based on gross derelict of duty, weakening the strength of the US Armed Forces and causing numerous deaths and casualties. The United States and its allies are more susceptible to attacks by Al Qaeda today, than in February 2003 when the War in Afghanistan should have been our focus.
I understand the CIA has blocked publication of a new book on the Escape of Osama Bin Laden from Tora Bora in December 2001. A CIA cover-up of failed leadership to keep our nation safe and secure. OBL has lived another day to continue his murderous streak of death and terror in other regions of the world.
~~~
~~~
Robert Novak had a choice. He chose to out Mrs. Wilson. This is a fact well known. What the deal was between he and Mr. Fitzgarld (sp) is going to come out sooner or later. I think it will be something of great value to who he got his information from….and they are worried as to what he told Mr. Fitzgarld (sp). I think he is having trouble sleeping at night. I know I would. Knowing the type of ppl he is involved with.
As long as who ever it is that did wrong, gets what is due them, is all I care about. To ruin their reputation like they have ruined others and not just the Wilson’s either. It is necessary that justice be done!!!!!!!!!
Robert Novak is a crook and he needs to be brought down along with the rest of them…plain and simple…