Covert CIA Officers....

[Postman]

Is the fact that someone is in a "covert status" in itself - "classified information" and privy to a need to know basis? Where is Novak's need to know?

I thought the appropriate response would be - "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of etc., etc.."

In other words, it seems as if Tom Davis is pushing the idea that it wasn't known that Valerie Plame was in a "covert status" and thus revealing her identity as an officer with the CIA wasn't criminal.

Is it the CIA's responsibility to pass covert status (i.e.,classified information)information to any newspaper columnist seeking to write a story?

[Igel]

1. It's worse that that.

Let's ignore the treason/espionage business; it doesn't apply since it's unclear who the enemy was that profited from knowing Plame's status, or that Novak was doing it in order to help the enemy.

The law requires a number of things, even under a fairly naive reading. Among them: (1) you have to know an agent is covert (under the terms of the law itself) and (2) you had to have security clearance and obtained access to the classified information under the terms of that clearance.

If you didn't know Plame was covert, you could say she was CIA, and the law wouldn't apply (even though you would be nailed for violating the terms of your security clearance). Armitage seems to fall into this 'loophole' (even though it's not a loophole, but an important part of the law). He knew she was CIA, but not covert. Oops.

If you didn't have a security clearance, you could know Plame was covert and say so. The law simply doesn't apply. Novak.

The law was specifically written, it seems, to nail CIA agents that find out the names of covert agents and make them known, whether to help a foreign power, to get revenge on a particular person, or to hurt the CIA/US. It's not intended to go after civilians or those with clearances that make (or plausibly make) a mistake.

[Postman]

2. Hmmm..

White House leakers knew of Plames' CIA employ but claim not to know of her "covert status" thus avoiding prosecution under the IIPA. (With their track record, I believe they somehow knew she was covert also, but leaked it anyway hiding behind the "we didn't know she was covert" line)

Which ends up in a spiralling downward argument away from WHY she was exposed.

Kucinich was getting to it before he was cut off for time. To silence anyone else from challenging their lies for going to war and to show them that your career is over if you cross us with anything like the truth)

[damntexdem]

3. How could they KNOW she was CIA without knowing she was covert?

Someone had to tell the WH that Plame was a CIA operative, and legally could only tell someone with a security clearance allowing them to know. In such a situation, would the CIA informant not be required to NOTE that she was covert? If they only said she was CIA without warning that she was covert, would that not be effectively outing her, because they would not be passing on the information that her name must be kept secure?