Is That Legal?

Hey, if leaking the employment status of a CIA desk officer, who was a former field operative roughly 7 or 8 years previously merits an espionage and disclosure of classified info investigation, it seems to me that leaking the existence and some of the locations of ongoing CIA counterterrorism operations around the world merits at least some questioning. According to the article the facilities were classified to prevent targeting by terrorists seeking to free their mates, which is precisely the kind of attack that has occurred repeatedly at holding facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike the light cover (mildly classified) or simply discreet status (not classified at all) of a CIA desk officer, this information was probably top secret code word classified, part of a special access program to which very, very few officials have access. From a purely technical legal standpoint of national security law, this is a much more grievous leak. And based on the threat, it does jeopardize the safety of the personnel working on those operations on the ground.

I’m pretty sure your reflexive answer will be “but they are illegal facilities not known to Congress, the article said they were “black” so it’s good that this information was leaked. That is a risky presumption.

Indeed, they probably weren’t known to Congress at large. There is a high degree of compartmentalization in the intelligence world, imposed by the necessity of keeping secrets truly secret – the more people who know a fact, the more likely it will be leaked and the operation blown, with corresponding damage to national (or at times international) security. Witness this leak, and the Plame leak. There are many facts about CIA operations that aren’t known to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, much less to Congress at large. That’s why there is a “black” intelligence budget process that doesn’t go into details, and why the Chairman of the SCSI is so powerful; he often gets more of the meaty details than do his fellows on the SCSI. You can’t presume these facilities are illegal without knowing more. Sure, maybe they were illegal and outside of Congressional sanction; I’m not willing to go there yet, based on the sketchy facts known and the one anonymous source.

Now for the kicker: it appears that a Majority staffer – a Senate Republican staffer on an arch conservative senator’s staff – was probably behind the leak.

Do you feel differently now? I suspect once this fact becomes better known, we'll hear cries from the left that we should hang that dirty Republican SOB for treason, for jeopardizing our brave intelligence operatives.

Sign me
/waiting for the other shoe to drop

Good point, Al. I'll go check on the status of the congressional investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity and get back to you.

Oh, wait. There is no congressional investigation of that. Nevermind.

Indeed, they probably weren’t known to Congress at large. [snip] Witness this leak, and the Plame leak. There are many facts about CIA operations that aren’t known to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, much less to Congress at large. That’s why there is a “black” intelligence budget process that doesn’t go into details, and why the Chairman of the SCSI is so powerful; he often gets more of the meaty details than do his fellows on the SCSI.

And so that's why Trent Lott was reporting that Cheney told Republican Senators about these facilities at a partisan lunch meeting for Republican Senators (as distinct from the intelligence committee, which at least for now, has some Democrats on it)?

I'm sorry, did I miss the law where having an (R) after your name created sooper-dooper security clearance, so that you could know everything that the intelligence committee knows? I mean, I know that the Republicans fancy themselves strong on national security (all evidence to the contrary), but I wasn't aware that it had been made so formal. Seems like if the reports are correct, Cheney blew the cover on these facilities.

Eric, I think you must have misinterpreted Al's comments. While he does mention Valerie Plame further down, the first paragraph is obviously about someone else. He describes this person as "a CIA desk officer, who was a former field operative roughly 7 or 8 years previously." That couldn't possibly describe Plame, whose overseas "business trips" continued until 2003 when her identity was leaked. He goes on to say that this person was under "light cover (mildly classified) or simply discreet status (not classified at all)." We know for a fact that Plame's identity was classified. We also know that she was officially employed by a CIA front company and that her friends, neighbors, and even siblings were unaware that she worked for the CIA. This would not have been the case if she'd been under light cover. The paragraph concludes by contrasting the "black sites" leak with this one, saying that the former "does jeopardize the safety of the personnel working on those operations on the ground." Since the Plame leak exposed her contacts to the risk of arrest and possibly death, damaged the CIA's ability to recruit new contacts, and led to outing of the front company, which may well have endangered her fellow operatives, this could not possibly be the leak he was referring to. Similarly, his next paragraph makes the point that we don't yet know whether the exposure of the black sites was justified by their illegality. We do know that the Plame leak revealed nothing even remotely illegal, so his point would have been meaningless if he'd been comparing the black site leak to that one.

Beth, first, do you know anything about non-official cover? Reul Marc Gerecht has a decent article about it today, and it pretty well summarizes the CIA's cagey games with it and phoney coyness when it comes to employees of the agency. "Business trips"? What's a business trip? The CIA stated that Plame's last trip using cover was in 1997, after which she became a desk officer. It doesn't matter if she visited embassies or spoke to El Baradei after that; if she wasn't traveling in cover status, then it's not exactly a state secret that she works at the CIA. If she was really, truly covert, she wouldn't be hanging out at CIA HQ for 8 years working a desk, she wouldn't be coming anywhere near Langley, she'd be at a front corporation or in a real corporation or some other government agency doing her thing, and not driving through the front gate and commuting back and forth down the GW parkway to Route 123 every day. Where she worked and what she was doing is at best light covered, it's not a heavily backstopped, highly classified codeword type of status that an agent regularly operating in hostile territory, or a field operative working under similar conditions, would have. The mere fact of employment at the CIA is not classified. Otherwise, every time anybody mentioned Porter Goss (a former Case Officer who travels abroad on "business trips" for the CIA, BTW) it would be a security breach.

Second, does the fact of her involvement in picking her husband, a state department guy, to go perform an intelligence mission, strike you as proper? Is nepotism wrong? How about if a decision to go to war, or not, turns on it?

Third, what makes the CIA's determination of classification so important when it comes to a single ex-field operative, but so irrelevant when it comes to ongoing missions involving hundreds or thousands of U.S. and allied operatives?

Fourth and finally, Trent Lott has now said that Dick Cheney leaked the prison details, that a Republican senator did, and that a republican senate staffer did. Which Trent ought we to believe?

Final question: Holding captured AQ fighters is wrong and illegal in your mind, correct? So is repatriating them to their home countries, where they are likely to get tortured, right? So what ought we to do with them? Serious question. Let's hear your proposal.

Beth, first, do you know anything about non-official cover?

A little. I know that it's generally reserved for work too sensitive for official cover, which protects operatives with diplomatic immunity (NOC's have no such protection). I know that only a small minority of CIA operatives are NOC's, and the CIA takes leaks of their identities extremely seriously.

Reul Marc Gerecht has a decent article about it today...

Well, if you can't trust the director of PNAC, who can you trust? How about a former CIA employee? According to Larry Johnson, "In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies."

The CIA stated that Plame's last trip using cover was in 1997...

Source, please. From what I've seen, the CIA's been extremely coy about the whole thing, saying only that Plame worked for them and her employment was classified.

...after which she became a desk officer. It doesn't matter if she visited embassies or spoke to El Baradei after that; if she wasn't traveling in cover status, then it's not exactly a state secret that she works at the CIA

If she was no longer using the cover, then why was she still receiving W-2's from Brewster Jennings and listing them as her employer on official documents?

The mere fact of employment at the CIA is not classified.

Thank you, yes. That mere fact is not classified, but Valerie Plame's identity was. Doesn't that suggest anything to you?

does the fact of her involvement in picking her husband, a state department guy, to go perform an intelligence mission, strike you as proper?

Not only proper, but perfectly natural. If you were considering employing someone connected to a trusted employee, wouldn't you ask the employee about that person?

Is nepotism wrong?

Irrelevent, since Plame didn't hire Wilson.

How about if a decision to go to war, or not, turns on it?

In such a case, I wouldn't waste time worrying about some possible appearance of nepotism. I'd want the best, most qualified person, no matter who they were. Are you suggesting Wilson was unqualified?

what makes the CIA's determination of classification so important when it comes to a single ex-field operative, but so irrelevant when it comes to ongoing missions involving hundreds or thousands of U.S. and allied operatives?

I'd like to ask you the same question in reverse, since I'm not the one saying one of those cases is irrelevant. (I will say, though, that in the latter case, it appears that it may have been justified.)

Trent Lott has now said that Dick Cheney leaked the prison details, that a Republican senator did, and that a republican senate staffer did.

That gets back to your earlier comment: "I suspect once this fact becomes better known, we'll hear cries from the left that we should hang that dirty Republican SOB for treason, for jeopardizing our brave intelligence operatives." Would you care to put a little money on that? I'd be happy to wager $50 that you're wrong ($30 if it's Cheney. There's a limit to how much temptation people can resist.) A few ground rules, though. It can't just be some obscure lefty blogger. It has to be at least one or two major figures or at least a significant minority of minor lefties. Also, cries of "hypocricy" when congress suddenly drops the investigation don't count. We're looking for unqualified condemnation of the leak itself. (That means things like, "Of course leaking classified information is illegal, but..." don't count either.)

So what ought we to do with [captured AQ fighters]?

I'm no expert in these matters. I don't even know what their legal status is. I guess that if they're enemy combatants, we should hold them as POWs; if they're not, we should convict and imprison them as criminals; and if neither case applies and they're wanted in countries we have extradition treaties with, we should extradite them.