Friday, October 21, 2005
How covert was Valerie Plame?
This is NOT the "mishandl(ing of) mildly classified material", it's terminating an active undercover operation to interrupt and mitigate international trafficking in weapons (including WMD) in order to protect the lie told in the SOTU and to punish a dissenter. It's terrifically terrible, Hawk.
If you are interested in this subject, don't miss Tom Maguire this morning, who begs to differ.
As powerful as Maguire's analysis may be, however, for the definitive argument that Valerie Plame really was not "covert" within the meaning of the law, read the amicus brief filed by the flower and the chivalry of the mainstream media last March in support of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper. Note particularly pages 7-13 of the brief itself (30-36 of the pdf file). Oh, heck, I'll just go ahead and quote the conclusion of thirty-six major news organizations (at least when their own people are threatened with jail):
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identify being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was "shocked, shocked"14 that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate.
Casablanca fans will be relieved to know that Baker & Hostetler did indeed credit "Warner Bros. Studios, 1942" in footnote 14.
3 Comments:
By 
geekesque, at
Fri Oct 21, 05:12:00 PM:
Of course, that definitive argument was completely rejected by the courts, who had much greater information regarding this case than any of us do.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Oct 21, 05:52:00 PM:
"Definitive" was, I agree, a poor choice of words. My bad.
Point is, there are lots of reasons to think there are good defenses to the Agent Identity Act under these facts.
By geekesque, at
Fri Oct 21, 07:20:00 PM:
Ah, but that assumes they're bringing a prosecution under the IIPA.
The Espionage Act is much easier case to bring. And such a prosecution is well within Fitzgerald's original mandate.
