Slashdot Mirror


Googling for CIA Agents

yali writes "As the heat turns up on the investigation into how an undercover CIA officer's identity was leaked to the press a technology columnist at the SF Chronicle, David Lazarus, shows how easy it is to identify individuals via the Internet. Even with little information, using widely available tools like Google and LexisNexis, it is possible to turn up startlingly relevant details." From the article: "I then went back to Google and got a map of Plame's neighborhood and directions to her home. Google also allowed me to study a high-resolution satellite photo of Plame's house. I could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares."

494 comments

  1. And? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the reporter was able to identify her by name and her maiden name. He was also able to dig up information as to where she lives and details regarding their home. What he was unable to do with this search is define what it is Ms. Plame actually did for a living. This information could be dug up via a search of tax records documenting her employer, but even this will not describe responsibilities within that employer. For instance, any W-2s I might have had would say that the listed person was an employee of the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency but they would not say anything about what job was actually performed.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:And? by Arbin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't know how you got modded as insightful since you obviously didn't read the article. Note the comment in the article where it states:

      "And I now possess all this information simply because I know (from Karl Rove, via Matt Cooper) that Joseph Wilson's wife "apparently works at the agency on WMD issues.""

    2. Re:And? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't know how you got modded as insightful since you obviously didn't read the article. Note the comment in the article where it states:

      You don't know much about the Agency do you? Do you have any idea how many analysts work there? Do you realize that all analysts are not "agents" working in secret as supposed employees of the State Department? Do you realize that agents working under-cover are often analysts? Determining who is actually a "spook" can be difficult and that is the problem with this case. If Ms. Plame was actually an under-cover operative, then an egregious violation of protocol and law has occurred.

      As an aside: You should also know that there are a significant number of employees working for the agency that are doing nothing in the way of classified work.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:And? by takeya · · Score: 1

      It is really easy to find out information on someone, to an extent. Their address, DOB, etc. are all fairly simple to find.

      Beyond that, though, it does get tough. Jobs, income, tax info, they require a bit more digging than a google search, but they're also becoming easy to find.

    4. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      She was a NOC, someone with 'non-offical cover'. Some people know what that means, but many apparently don't.

      For those who don't, anything listing her job would have had her working at that CIA front, 'Brewster Jennings & Associates'. Completely unrelated to the government.

      Which also means she was DISAVOWED if she got caught, not sent home with a stern note and public complaints like those with diplomatic immunity pretending to work for the state department.

      Many times spouses of NOCs don't even know who they really work for. Although presumably hers did, considering who he worked for.

      OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:And? by dsginter · · Score: 1

      I can see the day where we all change our last name to "Smith" or something of that nature.

      --
      More
    6. Re:And? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is good for more than spies- we can catch the terrorists this way! Mohammed Atta had no maiden name- I can tell you that without even doing a search. If someone had only told me he was going to commit a terrorist attack, I could have gone to Google and gotten a hi res aerial photo of the crappy apartment where he was living.

      I like how Bush put it: "Commissioner, if I had known that Arab terrorists were going to hijack airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center, I would have done everything I could to stop that." And to think, he could have easily prevented the attacks by typing "Mohammed Atta" into Google!

    7. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you're questioning whether she was an operative, or you're noting that while one could perhaps prove with unclassified data that someone works for the agency in question, one likely (I don't work for any government agencies, don't have access to such information, and don't ever want it) couldn't prove that said person held an operative job. The former is pretty clear now; the latter is an interesting question.

    8. Re:And? by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but for this specific case, you wouldn't even know that she worked for the CIA. She was a field agent who who had non-official status. This means that not only her employer was to be kept secret from friends/family, but the agency itself actively kept the secret. One of the things they did was set her employer as "Brewster & Associates" or something, so even if you rummaged around her W2's and got the name Brewster, that still wouldn't tell you what she does. Attempts to contact Brewster will only get you a PO Box and phone calls will be answered by other field agents who will deftly defer you away. Non-officials will also sometimes get new SSN's which make it harder to find them.

    9. Re:And? by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Actually, something not reported by the media right now, but completly relevant was that Mrs. Palme was no longer undercover at the time of article. Furthermore she was already known to be a expert in WMD, and made no attempt to hide the fact from her neighbors.

      This is all political. Are people surpised?

    10. Re:And? by blamanj · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And even the technology/web aspect is bogus. In many cases, a mere phone book is that would be required to do what he did, though perhaps without the maps. He also makes the assumption that the information he found via Lexis/Nexis would have been availble two years ago. It might well have, but his methodology is suspect.

      At any rate, until Novak and Rove, however, no one would have known that Plame was a CIA agent, and anyway Bush said he'd fire the person responsible for the leaks, he made no caveat about being convicted or not.

      Of course, all this "did he/didn't he" stuff obscures the original intent, which was a cynical attempt by Rove et al to discredit Wilson because he'd called them on their bogus use of the Niger memo. That was the first crime and one that is mostly lost in all the technical arguments.

    11. Re:And? by jfengel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man, how come I never have mod points when I want them? This is an angle I hadn't realized. It's not just Plame who was outed, but everybody at "Brewster Jennings".

    12. Re:And? by temi · · Score: 1

      "And?" is the correct question to ask here. Lets be serious, is this really surprising?

      No one should be shocked that you can find this information about a person online, you've probably been aware (and sometimes guilty) of doing it for years, especially as a tech crowd.

      the problem and outrage still should only lie in the fact that you KNOW the person you are looking at is a CIA agent.
      Think about it. The breach of security is in the connection of this person being CIA, not in you being able to find a random person's house.
      The fact remains that if Karl Rove would never have leaked her identity to the media, this would not be posted on /. right now, because it isnt news.

    13. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

      And numerous eastern european spook agencies where Plame worked for all those years have already done this. I'm sure they've also looked through their past records to find who met with who from that company a few years back.

      I remember back shortly after this Plame story first broke way back when, a friend of a friend said the rumors going over on the Hill (take with whatever salt you feel necessary) said as many as 70 of our sources had vanished. If that's true, most of them probably went into hiding, the remainder would have gotten quietly "picked up." Either way, they're not talking to our people anymore.
      It's dangerous being an informant for a foreign government, especially when that government's spy agencies can be jerked around like this by some half-ass political hack like Karl Rove, the Mayberry Machiavelli.

    14. Re:And? by BWJones · · Score: 3, Informative

      We actually do not know for sure what her status was as that information has never been released to the public and knowing the history of the employer, likely will not be.

      OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

      You should know that there are many, many companies and organizations hire "consultants". Brewster Jennings is a company that was indeed real, but set up as a cover company who may have in fact hired other folks that were not "cover". I am unaware of any specifics that have been published on this. However, you should also know that there are many other real companies that hire consultants. Companies that deal in construction, or real estate, or defense products, or science can all have "consultants" installed and working as cover for other purposes. Many of these companies can be found as customers of Dun & Bradstreet, but I will tell you that there are legitimate companies and cover companies they do business with and they can both do classified work or neither. My point is that just because someone is listed as an employee of such a company, that really means nothing as to their status or identity as a potential NOC. To paraphrase Freud, "A secretary may in fact just be a secretary."

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    15. Re:And? by hode · · Score: 1

      The CIA routinely sets up cover companies for their agents to work in. Perhaps you recall Air America?

    16. Re:And? by Punkrokkr · · Score: 1

      Except http://maps.google.com/ was not around at the time. :-)

      --

      There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling! -- CBG, "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
    17. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative
      She was a NOC. Non-official cover.

      She didn't officially work for the US government in any capacity, neither for the CIA or the State Department, where almost all the non-NOCs operatives pretend to work.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    18. Re:And? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Exactly, Plame/Wilson is her real name and as a NOC she used her real identity along with the front of a fake company to do CIA work, like thousands of others do. The top-secret James Bond world of fake personas and underground lairs is not how intelligence agencies tend to work.

      Finding stuff when you have a name is easy. Figuring out that that person is a NOC or the company they "work" for is a CIA front shouldnt be. Ignoring the actions of the current WH of course.

    19. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thats part of the point.
      Plames W2's were for a company called Brewster Jennings & Associates which realy was a front for the CIA. Not only was Plame outted (putting any associates or co-workers who may have been working with her in jepordy) but a covert front for the CIA was outted as well. Now anyone armed with the knowledge that Brewster Jennings & Associates is really a CIA front could go through W-2's looking for anyone employed by this company and essentially out dozens of CIA covert ops.

    20. Re:And? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      No, but Microsoft's TerraServer was around.

    21. Re:And? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      No, its not "just political." Outing an agent is outing an agent. Period. Thanks for the RNC talking points though.

    22. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its like saying our privacy is at risk because they publish phone books with our addresses? I have worked with Private investigators - they dont use the internet cause the data contained is generally unreliable and you have to know what you are looking for to find it. The amount of information available through the internet is dwarfed by the amount of information available through a few well placed phone calls. For example - how thorough would a utility/mortgage company be if you requested them to fax a copy of "your" bill to your office.

    23. Re:And? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
      We actually do not know for sure what her status was as that information has never been released to the public and knowing the history of the employer, likely will not be.


      We don't know, but we can draw a pretty educated guess. To wit: if Plame wasn't a covert operative, then "outing" her wouldn't have been illegal. So why would a grand jury be investigating? Boredom?
    24. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, apparently we're in luck, because Brewster Jennings wasn't used a 'real' cover identity when abroad. When she visited other countries, she probably used another cover company. (The CIA does not want to talk about exactly how it operates NOCs, unsupringly.)

      Of course, that doesn't gain anyone anything. Brewster Jennings was just located because it was on her FEC filing.

      Other countries know damn well who she claimed to be working for when she visited them, and they've 'googled' those names, too. (And they have search capablities that makes google look like an paper encyclopedia.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    25. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subject should have been Googling for CIA Agents wannabe ...

    26. Re:And? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1
      you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

      Would I find Scarecrow and Mrs. King?

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    27. Re:And? by stankulp · · Score: 1
      "And I now possess all this information simply because I know (from Karl Rove, via Matt Cooper) that Joseph Wilson's wife "apparently works at the agency on WMD issues.""


      You haven't been keeping up with the story.


      Even Joe Wilson is backpedaling.


      The MSM can't get away with it's dirty tricks anymore. The Internet won't let them.

      --
      We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    28. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Kerry outed an agent during the Bolton hearings. No one batted an eye. You're naive and a fool if you think it's not political. That article lies, by the way. A grand jury is not "investigating Rove." A grand jury has convened to investigate the source of the leak. Karl Rove was one of many people who testiied before them. At no point was he considered a "suspect" or was he "investigated". But thanks for the Air America talking points.

    29. Re:And? by tenchiken · · Score: 0, Troll

      You have zero creditability talking about "Talking Points" while linking to a site that is named "Talking Points" to refute it. Thanks for playing though!

      (BTW, Rove did not know she was undercover. He got the name from Novak: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0 .html), Also She was not undercover: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257- 9887r.htm and was making no effort to keep her job secret:
      http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/s ns-ap-cia-leak-rove,0,4798469,print.story?coll=nyc -nationhome-headlines

    30. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Brewster Jennings was a front group that only existed on paper. They had a PO Box, but Plame (and presumably their other employees) reported to actual CIA offices. The idea that this was "deep cover" or any sort of cover is laughable.

      Couple that with her marriage to a high profile ambassador and it becomes highly improbable that she was NOC.

      But let's ask a co-worker of her's:

      A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
      "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.


    31. Re:And? by RevDobbs · · Score: 1
      You should also know that there are a significant number of employees working for the agency that are doing nothing in the way of classified work.

      Yeah, take me for example: I make the meanest double frapachino on this side of the Mason-Dixon.

      How many barista do you know that go through three metal detectors a bomb-sniffing dog every morning?

    32. Re:And? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, that one, you have knowledge of this information and two, that you can post this information to a public forum where anyone--not just people within the United States, but anyone in the world with a piece of electronic equipment capable of accessing the internet--can read it and gain the same information means that the information is likely to be incomplete.

      To say it another way, there's only one organization whose members are exclusively CIA agents. Can you guess which one that is?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    33. Re:And? by hInstance · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, shouldn't the investigation consider _any_ agents whose cover was ultimately compromised, not just Plame herself? (Apparently it's not clear that she fit the applicable definition of covert agent)

    34. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the day where we all change our last name to "Smith" or something of that nature.

      I think the parent poster like "Jones". :-D

    35. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more silly, her name and maiden name have become completely public knowledge (since her outting by Karl Rove) well before this article was written. More specifically, Rove outted her identification a long time ago (back in '03) and others shortly after used Rove's leak to piece together her full legal name. Hey Bush, your brain is going to prison.

    36. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political grandstanding?

    37. Re:And? by jdray · · Score: 1
      It is really easy to find out information on someone, to an extent. Their address, DOB, etc. are all fairly simple to find.

      Okay, what's my birthday? How long did it take you?

      (Mind you, I make no special effort to obfuscate common information about myself, so if it's "easy" to find info on someone, I should be a good candidate)

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    38. Re:And? by LarryTheGeek · · Score: 1

      If you knew the history of this, you would also know that she actually "worked" for a CIA front company. So even if you had her W-2's, they wouldn't have told you anything. I would seriously doubt that any covert operatives actually get W-2's from the CIA. That would kind of defeat the purpose....

    39. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      She claimed to be working for Brewster Jennings in 1999 when she filed public documents with the FEC.

      That's being covert right there. Her cover was still there.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    40. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

      Which is the wonderful legacy Bush's white house has left for us. George Bush: compromising national security at every turn.

    41. Re:And? by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1
      Interestingly enough, this point makes the whole legality of her outing moot.

      If she was a NOC, then the agency could never say she was, and never would say she was either.

    42. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      December 14, 1962.

    43. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's only illegal if it's done intentionally and within 5 years of the agents having done any under cover work.

    44. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Couple that with her marriage to a high profile ambassador and it becomes highly improbable that she was NOC.
      Funny. Before we officially learned it was Karl Rove (although unofficially, everyone knew since 2003), nobody ever denied she was NOC. It's only now when they are caught under oath to be the culprits do you hear this "she wasn't NOC" nonsense coming from every conservative talking head on every major talk show in America.

      I've been following this since 2003, when Bush was saying how awful it was that somebody had done this, and presumably turned his head and winked, just as with the Swift Boat people, or what he did to McCain in 2000, or any other of these dirty tricks.

      Karl Rove is a logical extension of Richard Nixon's people. He started out working with his good friend Lee Atwater. That's really all you have to know about any of this.
    45. Re:And? by version5 · · Score: 1

      By Bush's Department of Justice? At the request of the CIA?

      --

      "It's Dot Com!"

    46. Re:And? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      NOC? DISAVOWED?

      You've been watching too much Mission Impossible!

    47. Re:And? by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of note, even her husband (the cause of all of this) says that she was not under cover or covert at the time her (rather well-known) identity was observed by reporters and mentioned to Rove. This whole thing is being squawked about (by political opponents) as if exactly the opposite of what really happened happened. And, of course, where were these people when someone like Clinton's former cabinet member and handyman Sandy Berger was stuffing classified documents in his socks while that team was trying to spin the discovery process under way as the 9/11 commission looked into why Al Qeada had such operational latitude in the years prior to the attacks. Point is, all of this "Rove should be fired" stuff is just silly, and so plainly partisan (they hate him - he's very good at his job) that it's rather embarassaing, actually.

      And yes - you're right about the huge number of people that spend their days in northern Virginia and elsewhere, doing the most mundane things imaginable. Hell, they don't even get paid all that well.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    48. Re:And? by sneakers563 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that. Think about all the people in foreign countries that had contact with her, maybe even worked with her. Now suppose those people live in countries with not-so-friendly, not-so-concerned-with-human-rights governments. What about them? Make no mistake: outing an agent doesn't just consign them to a desk job for the rest of their lives. In some ways, they're the ones least affected by it. It endangers the lives of countless others in very real ways.

    49. Re:And? by EvilMagnus · · Score: 4, Informative

      CIA wouldn't have refered the matter to DoJ, and DoJ wouldn't have formed a Grand Jury unless they thought someone broke some laws, Mr Rustmann's analysis notwithstanding.

      And the official position of CIA (not just 'someone who supervised her') is that she was a NOC. You can spin that however you like, but I doubt the Special Counsel will listen to you.

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    50. Re:And? by scotch · · Score: 1

      Looks like sfgate.com batted an eye, at least.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    51. Re:And? by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 5, Insightful
      OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.
      Actually, that's the real problem with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries. Now it is useless as a front for US intelligence.
      What's the problem with this? Well, there's been a lot of talk of oil production having reached its peak and begun its decline. Financial Times recently reported that the Saudis had admitted that OPEC oil production won't be able to meet world demand within 20 years.
      I don't know whether petroleum production has yet reached its peak and started to decline, and I don't know when OPEC will not be able to meet world demand. Wouldn't it be nice if at this time of uncertainty, the USA had some kind of asset capable of investigating these things from up close?
      Too bad a political vendetta destroyed major intelligence assets that could have helped with just that.
      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    52. Re:And? by ehiris · · Score: 1

      Many times spouses of NOCs don't even know who they really work for. Although presumably hers did, considering who he worked for.

      Actually I read that he did know about her job already while they were still dating and not because of whom he worked for but because he has high security clearance.

      Point being is that whoever released that information did so to retaliate against her husband who is against the Iraq war. He is the one who brought up the fact that one of the reasons for war is a lie.

      The Iraq war is there not because of WMDs or oil but because it keeps a lot of rednecks employed at high rates on the tax money from non-dividends profiting people. Think of the Iraq war as the same type of war that Hitler used to recover Germany out of depression.

      Will it be worth it? I think not!

    53. Re:And? by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Uh, this is kind of fundamental to our justice system. The grand jury is investigating whether or not a crime was committed. If they determine that there is enough evidence that a crime was committed, then they may issue some indictments, and we may see a trial. None of this implies guilt.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    54. Re:And? by dj28 · · Score: 1

      For someone who types with authority about the CIA, you seem not to know much about it. Namely, the CIA does not have "agents", but "officers." They aren't the FBI.

      You've been watching too many movies.

    55. Re:And? by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Before we officially learned it was Karl Rove

      I'm going to stop you right there. We haven't officially learned ANYTHING- we don't even know if a crime was committed in the first place. Rove learned about Plame from other journalists, so if there was a "leak", it happened before Rove was even involved.

      But all of the available evidence points to the fact that there wasn't a leak of confidential information at all. Wilson himself says that his wife was not a covert operative at the time of Novak's article, and it was apparently common knowledge in her neighborhood that Plame worked for the CIA. The reporters that told Rove about Plame could have got the information from anywhere.

      The fact that Wilson's wife did work for the CIA, and even more, that she was the one that recommended him for the trip to Niger (not the Vice President like Wilson claimed), is very relevent to the story because it proves Wilson lied about his trip. It is already known that he lied about his trip findings, and now the very genesis of the trip was a lie as well.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    56. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, did you intentionally misread this?

      Wilson also said "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

      In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.


      He pretty clearly is saying it was a sarcastic comment about the affect Novak's column had on her position.

    57. Re:And? by BWJones · · Score: 1

      For someone who types with authority about the CIA, you seem not to know much about it. Namely, the CIA does not have "agents", but "officers." They aren't the FBI. You've been watching too many movies.

      Don't be an ass. The terms "agent" and "officer" are used for specific duties in both agencies. As to "The Agency", to give you a little background from the legal act at issue, I quote: "The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982."

      Although the act is identified as the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982," its short title is the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act":

      "(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent. Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
      "(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information. Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
      "(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents. Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
      "(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences. A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment."


      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    58. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

      As I posted in another thread, it was pretty clear that Wilson's comment was a sarcastic jab at Novak. It's amazing how this quote has been twisted around and used as "proof" of the opposite.

    59. Re:And? by VividU · · Score: 1


      What is the will of the party but another flavor of revealed knowledge? Evidence, consensus, and reason are superfluous when Those On High have told you the answer--never mind that it conflicts with reality, or requires you to sacrifice your sons and daughters, or overrides the ideals of yesterday ("Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is soooo Eighteenth Century--the new mantra is "Fear and Obedience"). Reality must conform to ideology, not the other way around.


      Pharyngula
    60. Re:And? by Arbin · · Score: 1

      oh my.. You're not very bright are you? I don't need to know anything about the, "agency" - If I were looking for who this person might be (his wife) and I knew the legal name of her spouse, it would be as simple as the article states, to find out exactly WHO she is... but then, you didn't read the article, did you?

      Next time you reply to a comment of mine, reply to what it was I SAID in my original comment instad of spewing off further stupidity.

    61. Re:And? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The fact that Wilson's wife did work for the CIA, and even more, that she was the one that recommended him for the trip to Niger (not the Vice President like Wilson claimed), is very relevent to the story because it proves Wilson lied about his trip. It is already known that he lied about his trip findings, and now the very genesis of the trip was a lie as well.

      That's what Rove claims. The guy who told reporters about her to descredit Wilson, all for covering up what we now know were lies. Which is what Wilson said from the start. How convenient for you to ignore all of that. Face it, Iraq did not buy or even intend to buy yellowcake from Niger, and the White House knew it. And they lied about that. And then Rove did what he always does.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    62. Re:And? by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      You have to go through a bomb-sniffing dog?

      That must be a really big dog.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    63. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We haven't officially learned ANYTHING
      Yes we have. Rove's lawyer has admitted it. All of the Washington insider press -- which already knew since 2003, because it was never any secret in Washington what Rove was going around doing -- have come out and confirmed it.

      Whether it was a crime, or where Rove learned the information, that stuff we don't know. But don't pretend like we don't know anything.

      Anybody who's read anything about Plame knows that Karl Rove led the campaign to get her name in the papers. There was never any doubting it, not in 2003, and not in 2005. Now we have a confession of sorts from the lawyer, and Republicans are all of a sudden trying to do damage control on what Rove did, changing their story from "we would never do such an awful thing" to "it wasn't a crime."

      Are they right to say that it isn't a crime? I don't know. But let's not pretend that this is a consisent message.
      and it was apparently common knowledge in her neighborhood that Plame worked for the CIA.
      This part is just plain not true. Have you seen the New York Times piece where they interview people from her neighborhood?

      I'm from the DC area and I know someone who met Plame at a Washington party, where she gave him a business card. Years later he was shocked to see this whole thing about her being a CIA agent. He checked the business card and sure enough it was the same name. I've heard similar stories about others around here who knew her, and experienced the same shock. It's no bullshit.
    64. Re:And? by Arbin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dr. B W Jones

      born around 1969 to 1971

      Wrote a dissertation with a title I'm not even going to try and type here

      Your street address begins with a K and the house number ends with an 8

      Your phone number ends with a 6

      Should I continue?

      The same way I was able to get your personal home address/phone number is the same method that that this journalist used to discover the identity of the wife on one mere fact. That his wife works for the CIA - In what capacity? That's irrelevant. The entire purpose of this article is to show how easy it is to discover anything, about anyone, on the net with very little information to begin with.

    65. Re:And? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      The grand jury is investigating whether or not a crime was committed. If they determine that there is enough evidence that a crime was committed, then they may issue some indictments, and we may see a trial. None of this implies guilt.

      Right, but that wasn't the issue at hand. The grand-grand-parent post questioned whether or not she was actually a covert operative. However, if she wasn't covert, then there's no possible crime involved. If there's no possible crime, then there's no use for a grand jury. Because there is a grand jury, we can definitely conclude she was a covert operative. Whether or not anyone committed a crime is a separate issue.

    66. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she hadn't held that classification since 97 and was just a regular CIA employee.

    67. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, that's why you need someone like Rove to say, "so and so's wife." The only thing clearer than that would be to point at her face at point blank.

    68. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that depends on whether or not those neighbors ever socialized with the Wilson's or not and to what extent. I could have a CIA agent, al Qaeda mastermind, serial killer, or Ghandi living across the hall from me for all I know. If some reporter came knocking on my door asking if I knew that my neighbor was a _____, my answer would be "No". Same sort of thing if I ever met someone at a party

    69. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can see how they treat that story on par with Rove doing it.

    70. Re:And? by BWJones · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your phone call to my home at 5:58 pm was documented. You did nothing illegal, but please know that even though it was tagged as anonymous, statistics were recorded. Please keep reading.

      You should know that I was hired, partly based upon my history and honesty. So, I am going to be honest with you now: I am hiding nothing and prefer my life that way so that I can focus on my work and not on what was said or when it was said. Because of this, many facts about me are available to the general public and on the Internet. However, because of research collaborations, there are "sensitive" projects that we are engaged in. Those sensitive projects require that I report contacts such as phone calls that are *hang ups* and queries as to identity among other specifics. Most of them are telemarketers, but very rarely, some of them have ulterior motives. Your phone call was documented and reported as are the contents of my postings on Slashdot concerning your call. It's a hassle, but I am required to do so. Please understand that I am not upset or angry with you at all and appreciate your point with respect to the article and the phone call, but am telling you this to be totally honest with you. I am also documenting that your phone call was not malicious in nature and that it was linked to this discussion, so don't worry about it as nothing will happen as a result of this specific incident. I just wanted to be straightforward with you about this.

      With the best of intentions....

      BWJones

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    71. Re:And? by dj28 · · Score: 1

      Agent is used to describe someone recruited by an officer. The distinction isn't losely made like you want to make everyone believe. It's very strictly defined. An officer will sneer at you if you call him an agent, because he isn't. The FBI has agents, the CIA has officers.

      Now go back to watching your James Bond movies because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Idiot.

    72. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking back at the parent post it looks like he is technically correct. I can assure you as someone who actually works with a company that is a contractor for the FBI, he is correct and you are factually incorrect. Also, looking back at your previous posts, it appears that you have a bit of an exaggeration problem. Lawyer? Ha! Thats either a rich one or you are one of the worst lawyers around.

    73. Re:And? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. He's spinning. She was not covert in the first place. As an analyst, she was scarcely covert. Her employer (and her role) were well known to her family, social circle, and most reporters that were covering her husband's truth-bending about her arranging for his Niger trip. Those same reporters, in talking to Rove about other matters, asked him if he'd heard about the difference between what Wilson said (he was sent by the CIA to Niger on behalf of Dick Cheney, to whom he reported) vs. what actually happened (Dick Cheney had no idea about it, never heard from him or read a report - because Wilson never wrote one, and he only went because his wife came up with the idea and pitched it to her bosses, referring to his numerous mining contacts, etc).

      Point is, he's spinning now exactly like he has throughout this whole thing (including his NYT piece wherein he said there was no basis for Bush's yellowcake comment - even though the Brits, whom Bush was citing, became even more sure of their info later, and such asking around that Wilson did actually made the case even stronger, though he didn't put it all together or refused to acknowledge that when he wrote his political piece). His sense of place in this whole thing has more than a whiff of self aggrandizement, and his positioning of his wife as spook, despite the small army of journalists that knew better and talked casually about it, is just more evidence. That a journalist raised the issue of Wilson's CIA wife and her role in getting her husband on the Niger trip while talking to Rove (about which Rove was reported to have said, "yeah, I've heard that too") is hardly "blowing her identity." If Wilson's worried about when his wife lost her ability to be a covert player within the intelligence community he should think back to any number of neighborhood barbecues when she talked about her job in Langley (this is increasingly common at the agency - they are encouraging non-covert people to be more comfortable showing that the agency is an interesting and non-sinister place to work... they need a lot more recruits for their paper-pushing, analytical, IT, and other roles because of a lot of turnover to the private sector).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    74. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Mr. Jones, for identifying yourself as a CIA agent to me. Your name will be added to the list that I sell to foreign countries.

    75. Re:And? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      For those who don't, anything listing her job would have had her working at that CIA front, 'Brewster Jennings & Associates'. Completely unrelated to the government.

      In fact she made it no secret that she worked for the CIA. It was to the point that literally everyone in her neighborhood knew. Hardly "under cover". Most in official Washington didn't realize she had a cover, they thought she was one of the many civilian employees.

    76. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that would be the CIA Agents' Union.

    77. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wasn't anyone saying this before Rove got in trouble? It's not like this leak is new or anything. Really, who's spinning?

      Yeah... And that yellowcake thing, funny how it all turned out to be a terrible forgery. Funny, AND FUCKING SAD BECAUSE YOUNG PATRIOTIC AMERICANS ARE DYING IN THE DESERT NOW.

      Sorry. This whole situation has made me very angry for several years now. And, by the way, I have a wife serving overseas in the USAF right now who shares my anger and sadness.

    78. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It was to the point that literally everyone in her neighborhood knew."

      Back up that statement with evidence or shut the fuck up, douche.

    79. Re:And? by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      I think it's too bad that you think this subject
      (outing undercover intelligence officers) is some
      sort of joke, or unharmful at worse. It does
      point out some glaring shortcomings in efforts
      to preserve operational security.

      OTOH, setting up global "tail number watchers" to
      keep an eye on the intelligence agencies use of
      a fleet of corporate jets to illegally shift
      suspected "enemy combatants" to countries where
      they more readily be tortured for info falls more
      into the catagory "good investigative reporting".

    80. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I don't think it's any kind of joke at all.

      But, believe me, other intelligence did this two years ago. It's not like I'm telling anyone anything new.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    81. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      No, she wasn't a 'regular CIA employee'. You can't go from a NOC to a regular employee, because NOCs have elaborate covers that other agents use. And have been seen with 'coworkers' that are other NOCs, and, using their cover, have perfectly innocent chats with important assests in various countries.

      You can stop being a NOC, or, in her case, just stop going on missions, but you can't ever 'out' ourself as a CIA employee.

      That would be rather idiotic to allow...that invites other intelligence agencies to look back over your past trips and see who you were working for, who with, and who you talked with, and thus learn a hell of a lot about the CIA, and, incidently, kill our informants.

      It might be possible to pretend to be newly recruited by the CIA, and leave your cover that way, but she did not do that.

      Or considering the probable burn-through rate of NOCs and cover organizations, you might be able to out yourself after a certain number of years, if all the covers have been blown and all the agents and assests you worked with were dead, but I think we ought to let the CIA decide when that is, and we better hope that 6 years after she left active duty we hadn't had such an absurd turnover.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    82. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Hey, don't blame me if Mission Impossible used actual spy terminology. ;)

      And there actually are people we've left to die in enemy hands working for fictional companies, and if they broke down and admitted they were CIA we said 'No they aren't. We have no idea what they are talking about.'.

      Most CIA agents are the other kind, the kind that pose as aides to diplomats, with diplomatic immunity, and if they get caught they get the frowning of a lifetime before being sent home. If they do not get sent home, the US government has harsh language about 'diplomatic immunity' and has even sent in rescue teams.

      But NOCs...NOCs are on their own. Screw up bad enough, and we might shoot you. And that's what they sign up for.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    83. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Oh, and I forgot to add:

      There's a wall in the CIA headquarters, with stars on it to memorialize fallen CIA agents. It's got about 77 stars on it, but more than half don't have names.

      Of the ones that don't have names, there are intelligent guesses about many of them. The CIA will not officially confirm, but they are probably correct guesses.

      But there are about seven that no one outside of the CIA has any idea who they are for. When they were added, no country expressed outrage over the CIA spying on it, there was no suspicious death, no relative has come forward and said 'I know who that was', there's no cover name we know but have been unable to get past, no one has the slightest clue who that star is for.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    84. Re:And? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries. Now it is useless as a front for US intelligence.... ...Wouldn't it be nice if at this time of uncertainty, the USA had some kind of asset capable of investigating these things from up close? Too bad a political vendetta destroyed major intelligence assets that could have helped with just that.

      Indeed. Certainly there is no possibility that they might have other front companies in that vital economic sector now, or could possibly form them in the future. I guess we're just screwed.

      A provocative view of how to deal with Rove and his deeds is pondered here.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    85. Re:And? by hyfe · · Score: 1
      Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries.

      Which leads me to wonder, how can any critical foreign company take the liability of hiring the services of an American company? You preach free trade, but leverage your own companies for your own information gathering purposes. Any foreign company doing the same to you would be extremely quickly denounced as evil, yet I do not see anyone here taking issue to it.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    86. Re:And? by pbranes · · Score: 1

      No, its March 1967.

    87. Re:And? by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      Intelligence assets take a long time to develop. When they are exposed, they any anybody connected to them become useless. When a company like Brewster Jennings is exposed after years of work not only on gathering intelligence, but also in putting itself in position to gather intelligence, it is not just a matter of plopping down another company in its place. Not only would another CIA front have to spend years and years to duplicate the "getting closer" work done by Brewster Jennings, but it would be harder, because many of the techniques used by Brewster Jennings are now known. There almost certainly are other CIA fronts "out there," but that does not excuse the treason committed by whoever was responsible for exposing Valerie Plame and with her, Brewster Jennings and all the operatives associated with it.
      I find at least one factual error and two cutesy word games (the kind the Republicans used to complain that Clinton used) in the WSJ piece cited in the parent post.
      First, Joseph Wilson did not say he was recommended for the trip and investigation of the yellowcake claims by Cheney. What Wilson did say (and it has been verified) is that because of Cheney's office expressing interest in the yellowcake story to the CIA, the CIA decided to send somebody to investigate it. Valerie Plame recommended Wilson because of his experience in the region, and Wilson has never denied this or tried to suggest otherwise. He didn't bring it up, because his wife was an undercover CIA operative, not a person with a desk job at Langley.
      The first little word game, technically a true statement, but designed to mislead, is that it appears Rove "didn't even know Ms. Plame's name." Actually, that goes beyond what Rove and Luskin (his attorney) have said. They have said that Rove didn't tell the reporters her name. But that's where the word games and technicalities come in. They have admitted he mentioned "Joseph Wilson's wife." It isn't hard for a reporter to discover more about her, given that much information. "I didn't tell the reporters her name" is a statement designed to mislead the public into thinking he didn't divulge anything about her identity, when in fact he did.
      The other statement like this is the bit about Lord Butler's conclusion on the "sixteen words." He found that the statement in the State of the Union address was "well-founded." That just means that yes, British intelligence had received information (now known to have been forged) indicating that Saddam may have been seeking uranium in Niger. But what it ignores is that the information received by British Intelligence at that time was already known by the CIA to be false, and that nobody in the US or English intelligence communities now believes to be true.
      I also find it funny that the folks at the Wall Street Journal editorial page give so much credence to the report by Lord Butler but sweep the Downing Street memos, also from English government sources, under the rug. Funny that, huh?

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    88. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahaha. Do you sneak around your house humming the James Bond theme and pointing your finger like a gun too? Anyone who genuinely does a sensitive job wouldn't be shouting about it on Slashdot.

    89. Re:And? by ellem · · Score: 1

      oooh ooh do that with me...!

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    90. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it, Iraq did not buy or even intend to buy yellowcake from Niger, and the White House knew it. And they lied about that. And then Rove did what he always does.

      And until you have proof to back up those claims, you are simply talking out your rear end.

    91. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that. Think about all the people in foreign countries that had contact with her, maybe even worked with her. Now suppose those people live in countries with not-so-friendly, not-so-concerned-with-human-rights governments. What about them? Make no mistake: outing an agent doesn't just consign them to a desk job for the rest of their lives. In some ways, they're the ones least affected by it. It endangers the lives of countless others in very real ways.

      How would a US citizen, during the cold war, caught communicating with a known KGB agent be treated? Do you honestly think you would ever hear from them again? They'ld probably just be reported kidnapped, and then reported dead.

    92. Re:And? by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1

      Did you mis-post? Because that reply makes no sense to my original post, which concerned whether or not CIA thought a law had been broken, and DoJ agreeing that a law was probably broken, hence the formation of a Grand Jury. :)

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    93. Re:And? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Is it possible you can't see this post?

      I forget how the ratings work, I have them completely turned off. But you might have something odd there.

      The post I replied to said: 'she hadn't held that classification since 97 and was just a regular CIA employee.'

      Which is, a very silly assertation, because you can't go from being a NOC to saying 'Oh, yeah, now I magically work for the CIA without any training or anything. That energy company I worked at? They let me go. But luckily the CIA had an ad in a newspaper asking for a desk job for analyzing intelligence, and...what do you mean, what experience do I have working in the intelligence field? Erm, I mean, I'll pick it up as I go along, I guess.'.

      'What do you mean, how long have I really worked for the CIA?'

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    94. Re:And? by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see! Yeah, I don't read 0-rated AC stuff. My bad. :) And yeah, it's a very silly assertation.

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    95. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, talking like the Bush administration in its case for war on Iraq?

  2. Real smart, David Lazarus. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 1, Troll

    Isn't there already one reporter jailed over this story?

    Does David Lazarus want a big can of Patriot-Act whoop-ass to come down on him or what?

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by fishbowl · · Score: 0, Troll

      She chose to go to jail. From here, it looks like she chose to go to jail in order to protect a member of the current white house staff. Seems fair enough to me.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by timster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's remember that this is the NYT reporter who wrote stories citing that anonymous sources knew that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    3. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by deanj · · Score: 1

      Only flaw in that theory is said current member of the white house staff specifically signed something that gave all reporters wavers on any confidential talks about this person.

      Given this, who could she possibly be protecting? Does anyone seriously think that the NYTimes is protecting someone in the White House?

      My bet it's Joe Wilson himself. If that's the case, the special prosecutor will get him for lying to a grand jury about what took place.

    4. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Isn't calling her a reporter a bit generous? :)

    5. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Only flaw in that theory is said current member of the white house staff specifically signed something that gave all reporters wavers on any confidential talks about this person.

      They signed the document under threat of unemployment. That's duress which means that whatever the document says, there is no guarantee that it represents the person's true wishes.

      If that is all it took to make a reporter divulge an anonymous source, then there would be no value in a reporter's promise to keep their sources anonymous.

      Given this, who could she possibly be protecting? Does anyone seriously think that the NYTimes is protecting someone in the White House?

      Too much Rush, not enough critical thinking. It doesn't matter who she is protecting, what matters is that she is protecting them. If she didn't protect them, then she, and the NYT, would have a hard time getting anyone to be an anonymous source ever again. She is just making a personal stand for Freedom of the press, and like the saying goes, Freedom isn't free -- Miller is paying that price right now.

    6. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bet is she's protecting herself. Rove has testified that Novak and another member of the press told him about Plame. My guess is Miller is who told him first.

    7. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by mbbac · · Score: 1

      Wait, so now people are slagging journalists for actually doing their jobs? Don't do that! We should praise them.

      --

      mbbac

    8. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Staplerh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's remember that this is the NYT reporter who wrote stories citing that anonymous sources knew that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

      Oh, well by all means, then let's just have her thrown to the wolves then eh? Despite her other stories, the fact remains that Judith Miller is willing to take prison time for the sake of her professional ethics. I consider her reporting on the WMDs in Iraq to be incidental to the case - and a whole other bag of proverbial worms.

      --
      "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
      - Bob Dylan
    9. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The reporter was jailed for obstruction of justice for not revealing the source through which she obtained the information. Now, the information is public knowledge. In other words, what this reporter did in searching for her name on the internet is in no way illegal and, furthermore, has nothing to do with why the other reporter was jailed.

    10. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by tenchiken · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nevermind the fact that Patriot isn't even in use here, and has nothing to do with this subject. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your trolls. I am sure some /.er will moderate you up for it.

    11. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, this is a compeltely overblown attempt at sensationalism, and its just another embarrassment for Slashdot editors that they bit. Lazarus isn't exposing anything beyond finding someones address in a phone book(or if its unlisted in some other public database), and I image the Wilson's address is widely known at this point. Its not exactly top secret, that once you find someones address, you can get directions or an aerial photo in this day and age. News at 11.....we have this thing called the Internet where you can get maps and photos these days. If you've ever contributed to a political campaign, your name, I think address and how much you gave is online now too.

      The only confidential information involved in this whole pitch was that Plame was a CIA agent and THAT was probably not in any public records until Bob Novak published it in a newspaper, probably thanks to Karl Rove or his friends in the White House for leaking that fact to him. Whomever was spreading it around that she was a CIA agent was the only one guilty of anything here, and that was a very low tech ancient offense, leaking and smearing.

      The Judith Miller case is potentially interesting though. Maybe she is a crusading journalist fighting for a first ammendment right to protect sources which is the angle most media outlets pitch since she is one of their own. But there are two alternate explanations floating around that are plausible, more interesting, but hard to prove:

      A. Judith Miller was a key inciter of the WMD charges against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. She made her career frothing up a panic about the dangers of chemical and biological weapons, and she did half the Bush administrations work for them in trying to build a case that Saddam was an imminent danger to the U.S. because he had them so had to be taken down (at GREAT cost to the U.S. in blood, gold and respect). At this point it appears Miller's multiyear WMD crusade against Saddam was totally wrong. In some circles her career as a journalist is in ruin, because she was both wrong, and looks like a patsy for the Bush administration. Some think she went to jail with glee in an attempt to salvage her reputation by playing the martyr.

      B. The second alternate is that Miller is hiding more than just her source. There are indications that her source already released her from any need to maintain confidentiality, so there is a question as to why she still is. One hypothesis is that Miller may have been one of the earlier people who found out Plame was a CIA agent and she may have been calling people, like Karl Rove and saying, "Did you know Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent specializing in WMD and sent him on the mission", and people like Rove were repeating something Miller told them, not leaking to Miller. If thats the case, though its a bit of a long shot, then she could be charged for blowing Plame's cover and she might refusing to testify to the grand jury not to protect her source but to protect herself, and in a way that is less obvious than pleading the fifth.

      --
      @de_machina
    12. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by deanj · · Score: 1
      There were two papers, one was a blanket statement for the whole white house staff, the second specifically drafted by Rove and his lawyer.


      Too much Rush


      Ha! yeah, right...


      If a source tells a reporter that they don't have to keep the confidential agreement they have, then the reporter is free to talk. Rove let her off the hook. Explain to me what principle she's upholding if the source really is Rove and he let her off the hook?


      Therefore, it's either someone else. I think it's Joe Wilson.

    13. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Wait, so now people are slagging journalists for actually doing their jobs? Don't do that! We should praise them."

      Praise them for disclosing the names of undercover CIA agents?

      Personally I would call that treason.

    14. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      There were two papers, one was a blanket statement for the whole white house staff, the second specifically drafted by Rove and his lawyer.

      Just because he wrote it doesn't mean it wasn't under duress. False confessions are usually written by the confessor all the time. I'm not saying the source is Rove, I'm just saying that a public release means nothing - no matter who it was addressed to, it was written for public consumption, not the reporter's.

      If you really must have a personal motive for Miller potentially "protecting" Rove, then just look at the kinds of stories Miller has written in the past. Most of them have been supportive of the Bush administration's policies and actions.

    15. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Except that Rove waived both independently of the general white house waiver that Bush forced everyone to sign months ago. Miller is protecting a source other then Rove, since Rove disclosed everything he knew about it to the grand jury already several months ago.

    16. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Now here's something worth modding up (if only I could *hint hint* ;) ), unlike the great-grandparent, whose brief post seem to indicate no knowledge of the Judith Miller incident or the Patriot Act.

      For clarification purposes (not a direct reply to parent), Judith Miller was jailed not because she did something she shouldn't have--namely expose Valerie Plame's identity--and in fact, actually was not the person who wrote the Time (magazine) article that publicised the name. She went to jail because she refused to reveal her anonymous sources in front of a grand jury. Now, she likely knew about Plame's identity from the same source or was somehow otherwise tied to the case, which was why she was asked to testify. However, the grounds for which she was jailed was completely unrelated to the revealing of Plame's identity.

      Furthermore, victims of the Patriot Act are not necessarily jailed, and if they are, they probably are disappeared, not made into famous stars by the news media. Either way, the Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with the actual disappearing. However, powers granted by the Patriot Act would most likely be applied to candidates for this disappearing.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    17. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by deanj · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm still not buying it. Your theory that Miller is protecting Rove doesn't wash. She's not about to go to jail if she's off the hook with him.

    18. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by benna · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about. She was jailed because she is in contempt of court.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    19. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by SupraTT+GOP · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised this thinking is just now beginning to take off... but given yesterday's revelation by the Times that Novak told Rove about Wilson's wife's role in his being selected for the Niger trip, and the fact that Rove had apparently already gotten wind of this from other media sources, the notion that Wilson is the ultimate source himself becomes increasingly plausible.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827. asp/

      Although, one thing that stands out to me is that Novak attributed his source to a high-up administration official. But it seems clear that Novak did not know that Plame had any sort of 'covert' status himself. So... perhaps Novak's source was someone else in the administration besides Rove, who got the Plame info (sans covert info maybe) and passed it on to Novak. Which means there could be a lot of interesting source circles going on.... possibly leading ultimately back to Judy Miller, Joe Wilson, and/or Valery Plame/Wilson! Craziness....

    20. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by ThreeE · · Score: 1
      ...probably thanks to Karl Rove or his friends in the White House for leaking that fact to him.

      Karl didn't "leak" this -- he was told it by Novak himself. At worst, Karl made the mistake of accidently confirming it by saying "yeah, I heard that too." Finally, Plame wasn't even an agent at the time of the discussion.

      Just another attempt to "get even" for Bush's election and his policy mandate.

      I do find it amazing that there exists someone in the world (the parent poster) that without fail has the exact opposite opinion I have on pretty much every issue though! I wonder if demachina is gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that though! :)

    21. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by mbbac · · Score: 1

      No, praise David Lazarus, the reporter that wrote the article this /. post is about. Please try to follow the thread more closely in the future.

      --

      mbbac

    22. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Karl didn't "leak" this -- he was told it by Novak himself."

      You have no clue who leaked what to whom so stop making definitive statements and acting like you know. At least I couched my post as hypothesis.

      "I do find it amazing that there exists someone in the world (the parent poster) that without fail has the exact opposite opinion I have on pretty much every issue though! I wonder if demachina is gay?"

      Pretty lame attack Threeep. I guess you've given up trying to make coherent arguements and are just delving in to the gutter at this point, you and Rove have a lot in common, he bashes gays too. But please try to be more creative than using an attack which is most often heard among 12 year olds on the playground.

      --
      @de_machina
    23. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Looking back at my post, I struggle to see where any "bashing" occurred...

    24. Re:Real smart, David Lazarus. by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Looking back at my post, I struggle to see where any "bashing" occurred..."

      Uh lets see other than veering off in to a tangent questioning my sexual preference in a feeble attempt to wound and influence anyone stupid enough to be reading this thread, I cant think of a thing. Apparently this was the only avenue you had left since you apparently can't win a straight up arguement.

      Rove and company do exactly the same thing. They blatantly exploit homophobia to win votes and then pretend like there "is nothing wrong with that".

      You seem to be getting more and more pathetic with each new post I read. I'm torn, should I just start ignoring you because you are pathetic, or should I keep piling it on because you are such an easy and entertaining target. Your like shooting fish in a barrel.

      --
      @de_machina
  3. You're Not Field Officers by cynic10508 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nerds playing at being intelligence operatives. Cute.

    1. Re:You're Not Field Officers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, nerds showing how easy it would be for someone to do nasty stuff to her and her family now that her name and job have been leaked.

    2. Re:You're Not Field Officers by fonetik · · Score: 1
      Yeah... leave that to the professionals! You all are just a bunch of nerds that don't know anything about "actual intelligence". Heh... Nerds.

      Oh yeah, hey "Actual" intelligence operatives: Bang up job with EVERY PIECE OF INTEL FROM THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST SINCE 1975! Give me a break. The state of our country's "intelligence" wouldn't be funnier if it were run by retared sea monkies that spoke with lisps.

    3. Re:You're Not Field Officers by hanshotfirst · · Score: 1

      What if it were run by /. editors and moderated by intelligence consumers?

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    4. Re:You're Not Field Officers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does no good to have good intelligence from the Middle East if you show it to your superi2ors and they tell you "That answer's no good for me. Get me another one."

  4. Her Biggest Mistake by ndansmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    She probably shouldn't have joined that "CIA Spooks Only" group at Google groups.

    1. Re:Her Biggest Mistake by m50d · · Score: 0
      Google groups is not a set of groups, it's just a gateway to usenet, which has nothing to do with google, was around long before google, and will hopefully be around long after google is dead and buried.

      Ahem

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Her Biggest Mistake by aengblom · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ahem.

      It's both.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    3. Re:Her Biggest Mistake by AEton · · Score: 1

      Not any more. One of the features of Google Beta, aside from the terrible new UI, is the addition of groups local to Google and only loosely related to real Usenet.

      I'm fairly certain that Google does not provide a gateway to these groups (google.arts.newgroupname) from Usenet. So to a certain extent, Google Groups is now just a collection of groups.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    4. Re:Her Biggest Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did I know that the link would include the word beta somewhere in it...

    5. Re:Her Biggest Mistake by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Oooh, looks like you have outwitted him.

      So type groups.google.com into your browser. And read what the sentence in the rather ugly yellowish color says.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  5. Hard to tell.. by shakezula · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which is more scary, that privacy in general is a hard to obtain or that the Internet makes it readily available to anyone with too much time on their hands.

    I guess if privacy wasn't such a commodity, it wouldn't come as a shock when disrupted.

    --
    I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
  6. Agreed... by nathan+s · · Score: 1

    ...if someone wrote that about my house I'd be worried that they WANTED someone to break in. It reads like tactical analysis.

    1. Re:Agreed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was exactly what I thought when I read that...the only thing missing was the direct call to action. I dare say this person is probably on Roves side...

  7. Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The wonderful thing about the World Wide Web, the Information Super Highway, the Net, etc, is its ability to provide an enormous amount of information (duh). Compliments of those companies, groups, and otherwise who have developed means to mining this information, it is becoming far easier to find information you're looking for, cross-reference it, and filter out the garbage/noise/conspiracy theorists.

    Information Pollution, one of Arthur C. Clarke's insights pointed out some years back, that a time would come when the amount of noise within that enormous repository of information would become detrimental. In this case, the government might seek to inject as much contradictory information as it can.

  8. But if they had access to by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    their wallet and jewelry box they could look for the "I am a certified spy" card and secret decoder ring.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  9. Did they...? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did Google present some nice associated ad-links for James Bond cameras, trenchcoats, and Le Carre books while you were doing these searches?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  10. That's what they want you to think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they're onto you.

  11. Next week's column by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's his scare tactic for next week? How about "Did you know that your name and address are recorded in a privately-produced book that's located in every house and street corner in your town? For a city like New York, that's over 10 million copies of your private information."

    1. Re:Next week's column by Monkey+Angst · · Score: 1
      What's his scare tactic for next week? How about "Did you know that your name and address are recorded in a privately-produced book that's located in every house and street corner in your town? For a city like New York, that's over 10 million copies of your private information."

      Ha! When I was a kid, they had a book like that. Everyone's name and address was in it.

      What? They still make them?

      Here's a question that won't get much response on Slashdot: Who among us is actually in the phone book anymore? (Business listings aside) Anyone? Anyone?

      --
      stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
    2. Re:Next week's column by humankind · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even more ironic is if you want an unlisted number, you have to pay extra, but alternatively you can give the phone company any name to put in the directory. I had a friend who was listed in the phone book as "Judy Jetson".

    3. Re:Next week's column by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "but alternatively you can give the phone company any name to put in the directory. I had a friend who was listed in the phone book as "Judy Jetson".

      Yup, I learned this trick from a girlfriend of mine that worked at the phone company. Lots of women used to put like a first initial and last name as their entry. I do the same type thing...sometimes with middle name, etc or some strange combo. It makes it easy to identify the junk mail that comes in with that name on it. You know they scanned the phone books for that bit of info.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Next week's column by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Mods: This is not funny. This is insightful.

      The book in question is called the White Pages. It's what the Yellow Pages are to businesses, but for residences. It's produced by your local telephone company (still remember those, all you broadband subscribers?).

      Of course, it's not hard to get your name and number delisted from one of these. However, the telephone company still has all your residential information.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Next week's column by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am.

      The new phonebook's here! The new phonebook's here! I'm somebody now!

  12. It's worse than that... by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Long, long ago (in the '90s), when pondering an activist anti-spam site, I was able to get the name and phone number of Spamford Wallace's mom through doing a variety of online searches, and was seriously considering posting it with a suggestion that people call her and tell her what a terrible mother she must be for raising such a scumbag of a son.

    The reason I didn't... such a sword cuts both ways. If I put his mom in play, all moms became fair game.

    But this was 8 or 9 years ago, and the only thing that reporter cited that I wasn't able to do then was examine satellite photos of Spamford's mom's house.

    - G

    1. Re:It's worse than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I put his mom in play, all moms became fair game

      That sounds pretty hot. I say we get this game started! Mmmmmm...Oedipal

    2. Re:It's worse than that... by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Long, long ago (in the '90s), when pondering an activist anti-spam site, I was able to get the name and phone number of Spamford Wallace's mom through doing a variety of online searches, and was seriously considering posting it with a suggestion that people call her and tell her what a terrible mother she must be for raising such a scumbag of a son.

      The reason I didn't... such a sword cuts both ways. If I put his mom in play, all moms became fair game.

      But this was 8 or 9 years ago, and the only thing that reporter cited that I wasn't able to do then was examine satellite photos of Spamford's mom's house.

      What maybe only you could do 9 years ago, find an address, today many more people can do, and all might not have your reasoning. Some might be drinking and say "fuck it", and hit post.

      Don't we have websites today where people can post embarassing camera phone pictures of other people, without getting the consent of the other person?

      And what about credit checks? I see websites that will let anyone do a credit check if they know a SSN number and they can pay the fee. And the same thing for a Private Investigators report, who knows what information they have on that. Did anyone ever pay the $49.95 to get that report on someone?

      If I really wanted to fuck up someones life, I could not do it better than using google and the internet. For example, if I knew from your credit report that you have a revolving account at a store, and there is a large balance, then I know you shop there alot. What if I decided to go in there, and whisper to some employees that you have AIDS or are transgender and I don't want you trying on clothing??

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    3. Re:It's worse than that... by soliptic · · Score: 1
      Don't we have websites today where people can post embarassing camera phone pictures of other people, without getting the consent of the other person?

      Link or STFU ;]

    4. Re:It's worse than that... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I wasn't able to do then was examine satellite photos of Spamford's mom's house.

      Did it get filled up with cinderblocks too?

      (there was an effort a few years ago to have everybody within diving distance to bring a cinderblock to Spamford's lawn. Noone is going to get arrested for putting 1 cinderblock on his lawn, but he'd have a lawn full of thousands of cinderblocks to deal with.)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:It's worse than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck has his mom got to do with anything? What kind of Gestapo tactics is that?

      You're not only retarded, you're evil too.

  13. The three monkeys by elgee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is no guarantee, but to maximize your privacy, you must say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing.

    1. Re:The three monkeys by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, then how come I can find Bush on Google.

    2. Re:The three monkeys by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Actually the "wise monkeys" mean: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. More on the origin of the phrase here:
      - http://searchwarp.com/swa2800.htm

  14. The purpose of the article. by JossiRossi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the purpose of the article is to show that with the very little info that was leaked on the CIA agent, that it is very easy to use it to identify them. I believe one of the defense's Karl Rove and his people have been trying to use is, "We didn't give out THAT much, we didn't spell out the name or anything." When in fact the article proves that any leak, however small is too dangerous to risk.

    I kinda worry I just completely stated the obvious.

    --
    Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
    1. Re:The purpose of the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


      Actually their defense is that she wasn't undercover, her status as a CIA employee was widely known by DC social circles, and Karl learned about it from the media (possibly Miller.)

    2. Re:The purpose of the article. by mbbac · · Score: 1

      "I kinda worry I just completely stated the obvious."

      Judging by the other posts I read above yours, you're not.

      --

      mbbac

    3. Re:The purpose of the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, Karl specifically stated that he did not leak the name of the agent. When it turned out that he *did* in fact reveal her identity, the White House then claimed that Karl was telling the truth because he didn't actually spell out the name of the agent, he just gave enough information to completely identify her (as this article demonstrates).

    4. Re:The purpose of the article. by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I kinda worry I just completely stated the obvious.

      Don't worry. What's obvious for you is rarely obvious for most of Slashdot.

    5. Re:The purpose of the article. by FriedTurkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, when Karl Rove was asked if he leaked the information, he said that he didn't "say her name". What he actually said was that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. I guess Joseph Wilson could have multiple wives and therefore keep Valerie Plame anonymous. So technically he isn't lying in a semantic parsing of words kind of way.

      I think President Bush should honor his words and fire the person responsible.

    6. Re:The purpose of the article. by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I kinda worry I just completely stated the obvious.

      Dont worry, if you did you'll get modded Insightful in short order.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    7. Re:The purpose of the article. by deanj · · Score: 1
      When in fact the article proves that any leak, however small is too dangerous to risk.


      I sure wish there was this sort of outrage when Sandy Berger was caught stuffing secret documents in his socks and (yech) underwear last year. Where was the outrage then?

      Oh, right... He's a democrat. Nothing to see here...move along.

    8. Re:The purpose of the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's just a Fox talking point.

    9. Re:The purpose of the article. by Izaak · · Score: 1
      I sure wish there was this sort of outrage when Sandy Berger was caught stuffing secret documents in his socks and (yech) underwear last year. Where was the outrage then?


      Actually, while he did misappropriate documents, the 'whole stuffing them in his underwear' rumor was discredited. Anne Coulter and other psuedo-journalists had a lot of fun with it, but the truth was that the document went out in his briefcase.

      I won't split hairs about which is worse: breaking the cover of an active agent and forcing the roll-up of CIA assets working on WMDs, or trashing a few documents that could be politically damaging to a former President (or his Senator wife). Wrong is still wrong.

  15. On Nomenclature: by NoTheory · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The idiocy of the argument that Rove hasn't done something illegal because he only referred to Plame as Wilson's wife is underscored by articles like this. Whether he referred to her by name, or by a unique association to someone else (who is easily searchable) still picks out a unique individual, and thus still identifies her.

    Likewise, I'd go to jail just the same if i was threatening the life of George Bush or the President of the United states.

    --
    There are lives at stake here!
    1. Re:On Nomenclature: by pcidevel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Likewise, I'd go to jail just the same if i was threatening the life of George Bush or the President of the United states.

      Or, Laura Bush's husband.

      --

      I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!

    2. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rove hasn't done anything illegal because one of the requirements of breaking the law is that the agent must have been working overseas in the past 5 years. Wilson's wife has been working a DESK JOB in Langley Virginia in that period of time.

      But let's not let facts get in the way. Afterall, this is slashdot.

    3. Re:On Nomenclature: by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      It's deja vu all over again. Instead of what is the meaning of "is", its now what is the meaning of "identify". My favorite quote so far has been:

      Well, if a reporter has a lick of logical sense, you don't need to mention a name. Karl Rove, through his lawyer, now admits that he told a reporter that Joseph Wilson's had a wife who worked as an agent for the CIA. Marriage records are public, and unless Joseph Wilson is a bigamist it's easier than pie to figure out exactly who that wife is.
      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    4. Re:On Nomenclature: by djan · · Score: 1

      One thing that should be mentioned is that Joseph Wilson acknowledged recently that at the time of his wife being "outed", she was no longer a covert operative. She was working at a desk.

      This invalidates, at least the legal argument, the accusation of naming an undercover CIA agent. The morality of this action is another question, though.

    5. Re:On Nomenclature: by FooGoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the reason Rove hasn't done anything illegal is because Plame was not a clandestine agent when her name was revealed. In fact she hadn't been a covert agent for several years before her name was revealed. Also, Plame was never a deep cover NOC.

      From a Washington Times Article:
      "A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

      "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times."

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    6. Re:On Nomenclature: by argStyopa · · Score: 0, Troll

      OK, let's say it again slowly for the stupid ones in the bleacher seats.

      1) she wasn't Secret Squirrel. She was an officer that worked at LANGLEY. You know, the HQ of the CIA? Know a lot of non-CIA employees that work there do you?

      2) the law states that she has to have been a covert operative within the last 5 years. I gather she was employed with a 'cover' 9 years ago.

      3) the law states that Rove needs to reveal her identity with intent to expose her - it's a huge stretch to suggest that the identification that was made was an intent to reveal.

      Please, the Libocrats are so busy building strawmen on this one, they seem to have lost what little reason they evidently had left. Everyone from the news organizations that were looking for this information, to the lawyer that drafted the law being referred to: they all say no crime was committed.

      People, read the freaking law. Stop parroting talking points from Moveon.org, it just makes you look stupid(er).

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 5-year thing is news to me facts-boy. How 'bout a link?

    8. Re:On Nomenclature: by rnelsonee · · Score: 1
      This is from USA Today (I know, I know, but it's better than nothing). They, in turn, quote "experts". Not the best link, but maybe it can tide you over until someone finds a better one.

      link.

      Stupid law, by the way. I guess it's meant to benefit the friends/family of the agent, as they can finally learn what the heck their spouse/whatever was up to.

    9. Re:On Nomenclature: by jafac · · Score: 1


      Rove hasn't done anything illegal because one of the requirements of breaking the law is that the agent must have been working overseas in the past 5 years. Wilson's wife has been working a DESK JOB in Langley Virginia in that period of time.

      Not true. This seems to be one of the prime bits of misinformation being passed around in Rove's defense, but it's entirely wrong. Wilson said that she was no longer covert the day Novak wrote the article - or rather, Novak's article caused her to lose her cover.

      This was made plain by Larry Johnson (who's making the press-rounds this week) who is a former CIA employee who knew Val P, and knew her to be a NOC, and confirms that Novak compromised her identity.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    10. Re:On Nomenclature: by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      Outing the identity of a undercover operative isn't the only crime here my friend.

      The fact she was a CIA operative was still classified information and leaking classified information is still a crime. That's one of the reason why the CIA referred it to the Justice Department.

      You should stop parroting RNC talking points.

    11. Re:On Nomenclature: by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Funny how the "Conservatives" are bashing the "liberals" (and what the hell makes someone one of these groups or another, as if we couldn't be in both) about how they are just "building strawmen" as you so eloquently put it, when they were the ones trying to impeach Clinton for "Lying" when he said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. He never did have Sex with her.. He got a BJ. But that little Technicality was a Big lie, Unlike "Iraq has WMD that they intend to use, and are acquiring nuclear materials" and "She wasn't really covert, she worked a desk job, so the law didn't apply"

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    12. Re:On Nomenclature: by jafac · · Score: 1

      B-but. . . Clinton did it, that means WE get to get away with it too!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Findlaw.com

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/ chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_426.ht ml

      Under "The term ''covert agent'' means"

      "(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
      (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States"

      You haven't heard it because the main stream media hasn't said a thing about it. Read, or listen, to some alternative media sources and you might get some more facts.

    14. Re:On Nomenclature: by jafac · · Score: 1

      One thing that should be mentioned is that Joseph Wilson acknowledged recently that at the time of his wife being "outed", she was no longer a covert operative. She was working at a desk.

      Not true. He said that she was no longer covert the day Novak wrote the article - or rather, Novak's article caused her to lose her cover.

      This was made plain by Larry Johnson (who's making the press-rounds this week) who is a former CIA employee who knew Val P, and knew her to be a NOC, and confirms that Novak compromised her identity.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    15. Re:On Nomenclature: by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Oh, but funny, it's only recently that the crack heads on the right think it's inconsequential.

      Back on Sep 29, 2003 there was a press conference at the WH.
      Oddly enough they thought it was significant then. How come the change of heart now?
      From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030929-7.html#1


      Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

      MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

      Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

      MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

      Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

      MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

      Q Does he doubt?

      MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

      Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

      MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.


      They didn't say... "It's trivial. She's not a secret agent - everyone knew about it."
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20 040610-36.html

      June 10, 2004

      Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

      THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

      Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

      THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.


      Note: His reply to fire anyone who leaked the agent's name? Yes.

      So, there is a little wiggle room. Bush can claim that Rove didn't leak the name, which would be positively, I hate to say it, Clintonian.

      So, go ahead and come up with little green men excuses why Rove isn't to blame - we all understand your squirming.

      But clearly when no one was being directly blamed, the President and everyone else thought this was a very big deal. So big, GWB promised to fire anyone involved in leaking her name.

      How, you spin a very different story.

      Cheers,
      Greg

      Bush said

    16. Re:On Nomenclature: by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      It completely fucked up the cover company she established.
      "Yet Plame's association with a non-official cover (NOC), by default, means that she was covert, pure and simple. Brewster Jennings reportedly "suffered greatly" as a result of the disclosure, according to a knowledgeable source. Another source reported that at least one Brewster Jennings NOC operating in a hostile intelligence environment was executed by counter-intelligence agents as a result of the White House disclosure. Other B&JA assets were forced to abandon their ongoing operations to identify networks involved in weapons of mass destruction proliferation. The CIA has been working on a damage assessment report on the Plame/B&JA disclosures. If no indictments of White House officials result from the Fitzgerald investigation, look for parts of that highly classified report to be leaked and then look for more imprisonments of journalists who refuse to divulge the source(s) of those leaks. Word from intelligence sources is that the damage assessment report is "devastating.""

    17. Re:On Nomenclature: by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Actually, the reason Rove hasn't done anything illegal is because Plame was not a clandestine agent when her name was revealed. In fact she hadn't been a covert agent for several years before her name was revealed. Also, Plame was never a deep cover NOC.

      Not true. The Washington Times article is wrong. Wilson said that she was no longer covert the day Novak wrote the article - or rather, Novak's article caused her to lose her cover.

      This was made plain by Larry Johnson (who's making the press-rounds this week) who is a former CIA employee who knew Val P, and knew her to be a NOC, and confirms that Novak compromised her identity.

      The misinformation that she was not NOC is just a dust-up to provide cover for Rove. Not only did Rove break the law, but he compromised National Security - and clearly broke the rules that EVERY cleared person signs when they get a clearance.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    18. Re:On Nomenclature: by prockcore · · Score: 1

      "A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

      Amazing that Fred Rustmann knew that considering the fact that he has been retired from the CIA since 1990.

    19. Re:On Nomenclature: by Guuge · · Score: 1

      Here's the LIBERAL MEDIA ANTI-CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN side of the story:

      1) she wasn't Secret Squirrel. She was an officer that worked at LANGLEY. You know, the HQ of the CIA? Know a lot of non-CIA employees that work there do you?

      2) the law states that she has to have been a covert operative within the last 5 years. I gather she was employed with a 'cover' 9 years ago.


      Well, point #2 invalidates point #1. This brings us to your claim that her identification was not classified. I gather that this claim is not true.

      3) the law states that Rove needs to reveal her identity with intent to expose her - it's a huge stretch to suggest that the identification that was made was an intent to reveal.

      Do you trust your govenment so much that you cannot imagine a Republican leader abusing his power to punish someone who made a politically damaging revelation. No one who knows about Rove and his history is surprised that he would do something like this, especially at a time when the administration was caught lying during the rush to war.

      Please, the Libocrats are so busy building strawmen on this one, they seem to have lost what little reason they evidently had left.

      Of course, the name-calling must commence. I hope you feel better about yourself and your political positions now.

    20. Re:On Nomenclature: by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      HAH! Thanks, man. That cracked me up.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    21. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) the law states that she has to have been a covert operative within the last 5 years. I gather she was employed with a 'cover' 9 years ago.

      You gather? What is your source? The CIA has been driving the DOJ to investigate this. I suspect they have a better idea of her status than you.

    22. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, many people bitched about Bush's alleged motivation for invading Iraq because "Hussein tried to kill his daddy"..

    23. Re:On Nomenclature: by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      No, the fact of the matter is that....
      1. The fact that she was a covert agent was classified info.
      2. There's not "in fact" that she hasn't been a covert agent. She might still be one because the fact the a covert agent's NOC/Covert status is still classified after the no longer has those status.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    24. Re:On Nomenclature: by Shalda · · Score: 1

      See, here's the really funny thing: You can't make a case against anyone because only the CIA knows if she was NOC and I don't think they would care to testify in court about who is and isn't NOC. Ironic, eh?

    25. Re:On Nomenclature: by FooGoo · · Score: 0

      Lets see. Wilson said his wife wasn't undercover when the story was released. Larry Johnson says he attended a special CIA training program with Plame in 1985 and that he did not know what she did after that meeting in 1985....20 years ago. Isn't it possible that sometime during that 20 year period where Larry has no idea what Plame was up to her status had changed? I doubt the expected career lifespan of and undercover field operative is 20 years in the field.

      Also, you may want to consider using less partisan sources. I think Democracy Now!s viewpoint is a bit slanted.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    26. Re:On Nomenclature: by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Actually, his words was "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." this could be interpreted in 2 ways.
      1. She's no longer an operative BEFORE she was outed.
      2. She was an operative BEFORE she was outed, but lose that status immediately once she was compromised.

      The fact that her husband cannot said whether she was a covert op before being outed lends more credibility to the #2 interpretation.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    27. Re:On Nomenclature: by antibryce · · Score: 1


      Did you read the WT article the grandparent poster cited? Did you even read the citation he used? The article has nothing to do with what Wilson has said, instead focusing on a CIA agent who helped train Plame and now claims that her employment was public knowledge. Add him to a list of people who have claimed as much now (Cliff May, Andrea Mitchell, Cooper.)

    28. Re:On Nomenclature: by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      It's not all that amazing. According to Larry Johnson as mentioned by another poster. Plame was at the CIA in cladestine operations in 1985. Since Fred Rustmann was in clandestine services during that time period it's possible that he would have knowledge of her career.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    29. Re:On Nomenclature: by jdfox · · Score: 1

      Also, you may want to consider using less partisan sources. I think Democracy Now!s viewpoint is a bit slanted.

      What, unlike the rightwing smearsheet owned and heavily subsidized by the Moonies, which you cited in the grandparent post?

      How is that less "less partisan" than Democracy Now?

    30. Re:On Nomenclature: by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, let's cite the Moonies ferchrissakes.

      I'll make a deal with you -- I'll believe it when Karl Rove calls me and tells me that agent's name.

      Bemopolis

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    31. Re:On Nomenclature: by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      Thats the rub isn't. Since she was no longer a covert agent the law in question doesn't apply. It strictly relates to ongoing classified operations an agents supporting them. As far as we know Rove just said Wilsons wife worked at the CIA. He did not reveal in what capacity she worked.

      Now if you don't like Rove or he administration you must deal with the facts at hand...and no one has been able to dispute Roves comments. There has been a lot of conjecture but no facts. If he is guilty of treason or the things the Dems are claiming he should be prosecuted. But, the shifting accusations tell me there is nothing there.

      The real question is who was Judith Millers source. It was obviously not Rove as he released her from her confidentiality requirements regarding him as a source.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    32. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kills me is that after being burned countless times in the past few years with anonymous sources people still put any credence in these articles. It worked for Watergate, but at some point in the intevening years journalists threw out whatever integrity they had and decided tabloid was the way to go.

      BTW, since no crime was committed, I'm sure Fitzgerald (a Republican) is really just using this case as a cover for his real role. Clandestine vacationer :)

    33. Re:On Nomenclature: by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      Thats all you got....they where founded by the Moonies?

      I took the time to read the wikipedia link and it said that the Op/Ed section was heavily influenced by the Moonies and the unification movement. Lets say I buy that for a minute. The article I reference was not an Op/Ed piece. In fact I only pulled quotes by Fred Rustmann a source used in the article. So I would say that the Moonie factor in my posting is really low. Wait....maybe the Moonies got to Rustmann too...what a diabolical plot...where does it end.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    34. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remove the word agent from that. He knew his wife worked at the CIA, he didn't know she was an Agent.

    35. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that an agent works for the CIA is a classified piece of information in certain circumstances. If it were not, then they wouldn't exactly be undercover. Even if she no longer works undercover, revealing that she was a CIA "agent" immediately causes problems for other possible CIA agents that she worked with / interacted with.

    36. Re:On Nomenclature: by jdfox · · Score: 1

      Also, you may want to consider using less partisan sources. I think Democracy Now!s viewpoint is a bit slanted.

      How is the Washington Times "less partisan" than Democracy Now?

    37. Re:On Nomenclature: by cryogenix · · Score: 1

      He never had sex with her... He got a BJ. Why are BJ's called "Oral Sex". FYI, if you are in a relationship, go get one from someone else then tell your partner it's not sex and see what happens. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blow%20jo b "Definition: an act or instance of oral sex; fellatio" Honestly I don't care if Clinton got a BJ, that's between him, Monica and his wife. I do care that he got one from an intern working under him (sexual harrassment anyone), while discussing classified troop movements with other government officials. Last time I checked, Monica doesn't have security clearance for that. He then commits perjury as well as tampering with a witness by trying to get her to lie about it. Now... Lets assume you aren't president for a moment.. You get caught getting a BJ from an intern working for you IN YOUR OFFICE at work. Tell me you still have a job the next day. On the WMD's. You're right.. G.W. Bush made that all up. In fact he used secret government time machines to make the UN say it for years, to make John Kerry say it for years and in fact advocate troops in Iraq back when Clinton was president. He made Clinton say it for years. He made most governments say it for years. And of course he faked the chemical weapons attacks on Iraqi people... All so that he would have a cover story years later when he got elected. Why is it everyone else was correct when they said it, but Bush lied when he said it? Answer this.. We know Saddam had WMD's because he used them. Where did they go? You can hide a lot of stuff during the years that UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, in violation of UN resolutions... Now back to the issue at hand. What needs to be factually established for Rove to have broken the law are the following. 1) Was she an undercover agent at the time of his statement. 2) Was he aware she was an undercover agent and did he knowingly divulge this information with the purpose of outing her. If those conditions are not met, he did not break the law. The person who helped write that law doesn't even believe he broke it.

    38. Re:On Nomenclature: by sneakers563 · · Score: 1

      Not true. The CIA turned it over to the Justice Department, so apparently they believe that a crime may have been committed.

    39. Re:On Nomenclature: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you this: Where I work, if I did what Rove did, I would lose my job. And probably get sued by my employer.

    40. Re:On Nomenclature: by NoTheory · · Score: 1
      ::sighs:: again:
      BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

      What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

      WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

      BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

      WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

      She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...
      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    41. Re:On Nomenclature: by SupraTT+GOP · · Score: 1

      So, other people throughout the course of the last 5-6 years worth of history who have known and discussed the fact that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA are equally as 'guilty'?

      The onus was not on Karl Rove to not do what he did (which was hardly anything). The only perspective from which it could be said that Rove should have done anything differently can be illustrated as such:

      GWB: "Karl buddy, you ought to know better than to speak out loud. You know the media will make something out of every nothing-word they hear."

      In that sense, he should have known better. But it's not like he really did anything WRONG....much less CRIMINAL. What do you think, one is supposed to assume that everyone who is associated with the CIA is covert? Is that it?? LOL I'm sure Rove thought to himself, if anything, "Oh Novak would tell me if the lady was covert. Heck, how would he even know if she was? It's not like I can go find out anyway... (that is, need to know / chain of custody....)

      No, no, in fact, it turns out she was in some fashion 'covert' (although there is much debate as to how covert, how recently, and whether or not she should still be classified in that status or not)... and that means SOMEONE really DID leak this fact. Why is your outrage not directed there?? Who was it?? Judy Miller? Someone at the CIA? Colin Powell? Joe Wilson himself!!!? (highly possible, in my opinion)

      Oh, I'm sure your outrage is and will be proportionally directed towards this currently unknown perpetrator, who sadly, turns out NOT to be Karl Rove after all... right, right??! LOL ;-)

    42. Re:On Nomenclature: by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      You know, your argument would be stronger without the use of "LOL". Just some friendly advice.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    43. Re:On Nomenclature: by jonbrewer · · Score: 1

      From a Washington Times Article

      I didn't know anyone took this newspaper seriously. Hopefully no one out there thinks of it as having balanced reporting on politics. Even the staunchest of Young Republicans knows it was founded by Rev. Moon in order to be a conservative foil to the Washington Post.

    44. Re:On Nomenclature: by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      Not true. The Washington Times article is wrong. Wilson said that she was no longer covert the day Novak wrote the article - or rather, Novak's article caused her to lose her cover.

      The article is right and many sources have shown that SHE made it known all over to the point that all of her neighbors knew she worked at the CIA. If her husband hadn't lied in the first place and said that Cheney sent him to Niger then none of this would have happened. That is, one of Wilson's many lies that he has been caught red handed in.

      The real story here is how come she was able to get her husband, a man with NO experience for this mission to Niger (i.e. you needed a COP, not an old diplomat!), the job to go to Niger. The other story is how Rove was trying to get a reporter that had been told by Wilson himself that Cheney sent him and not his wife. Rove is getting in trouble for not letting Wilson get away with one of his many lies. If anyone should get in legal trouble over this, it should be Wilson and his wife.

      Finally we know Rove didn't break the law after all because even the Democrats don't think so. They are trying to pass a law retroactively to get him. They were discussing it on CSPAN. If anyone compromised national security, it was Wilson and his wife in their attempt to get Bush.

    45. Re:On Nomenclature: by Boronx · · Score: 1

      The Washington Times is still owned by the good Reverend and it's run at a loss, so the paper exists entirely on his largess.

    46. Re:On Nomenclature: by owlstead · · Score: 1

      UU

  16. Re:Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by you-nix-boy · · Score: 1, Troll

    They already do. It's called Fox News...

    --
    --- Pork is not a verb.
  17. Psst.. Read the article.. by Arbin · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Don't know how you got modded as insightful since you obviously didn't read the article. Note the comment in the article where it states: "And I now possess all this information simply because I know (from Karl Rove, via Matt Cooper) that Joseph Wilson's wife "apparently works at the agency on WMD issues.""

    1. Re:Psst.. Read the article.. by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

      Don't know how you got modded as insightful since you obviously didn't read the article...

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

  18. Re:Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    the World Wide Web, the Information Super Highway

    1990 called, they want their PR bullshit back...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  19. Everyone but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "this episode underlines how little effort is required in this info-rich age to identify and locate virtually anyone."

    Maybe someone should show CIA Director Porter Goss handy tool so we can get better then a "pretty good idea" of where bin laden is?

  20. Re:Um... by gbulmash · · Score: 1
    ...just what are we talking about here?

    The Irish terrorists attacking Jack Ryan's house in Patriot Games comes to mind.

    - G

  21. Can someone please... by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    post David Lazarus address, phone number and google map coords? I'm interested in, uh, how accessible his house is by large van...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Can someone please... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      post David Lazarus address, phone number and google map coords? I'm interested in, uh, how accessible his house is by large van

      Dunno, but yours is very accessable. Came right up with google (slashdot userid=spun home map boom). By the way, your roof needs new shingles, put more water in your dog's water dish, there is cat dung in the play sand out back, there is a pocket knife 1 foot from the sidewalk and drivway in the grass and you need to hide the pot plants better.

      Anything I said that is right is purely coincidental and was for fun purposes only. If the above google query actually works, let me know!

    2. Re:Can someone please... by jea6 · · Score: 1

      That's easy:

      LAZARUS, DAVID
      115 Skyview Way
      San Francisco, CA 94131-1228
      (415) 641-7848

      As for the satellite picture, use Google: http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=115+Skyview+W ay,+San+Francisco,+CA+94131

      Or e-mail at: dlazarus(a t)sfchronicle.com

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
  22. My e-mail to Mr. Lazarus... by jea6 · · Score: 1, Funny

    dlazarus(a t)sfchronicle.com

    Mr. Lazarus,

    I fail to see what you achieved that was ground-breaking. Given a name, you determined the name of the spouse? And then you found out where they live? Maybe I missed the point of your article.

    Sincerely...

    --

    sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    1. Re:My e-mail to Mr. Lazarus... by theodicey · · Score: 1

      Well, Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin was making public claims that saying "Joseph Wilson's wife is a CIA agent" doesn't actually reveal that her name is "Valerie", and so isn't illegal.

      You and Lazarus should get together and offer him googling lessons, y'know?

    2. Re:My e-mail to Mr. Lazarus... by jea6 · · Score: 1

      The "I didn't know her name" is irrelevant in the context of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
  23. "How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 0

    My point being, the summary is misleading in that it implies Valerie Plame was an undercover agent at the time of her "outing." Her husband, when pressed (cuz it's kinda dopey to complain about bureaucrats being outed...) admits as much.

    Relevant quote from article:
    Wilson also said "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

    No Spy, No Crime. (Another of those niggling details the press forgets amidst the excitement of their pitchfork-sharpening and torch-lighting...)

    1. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by gbulmash · · Score: 1
      No Spy, No Crime. (Another of those niggling details the press forgets amidst the excitement of their pitchfork-sharpening and torch-lighting...)

      Doesn't make Bob Novak any less of a tool.

      - G

    2. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may well be that agents recruited by Valerie Plame to spy against their countries were endangered by the identification. It's amazing to me that no report I've read about the outing has mentioned this.

    3. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by prockcore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Her husband, when pressed (cuz it's kinda dopey to complain about bureaucrats being outed...) admits as much.

      No he didn't.

      "In stating that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," Wilson was simply noting that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it."

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003

      The AP has already run a correction to the story you link to. Nice try though.

    4. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bob Novak ... Douche Bag of Liberty!

    5. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by whitehatlurker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also FTA:
      "In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand."

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    6. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      If you actually read the article you will note that his wife stopped being a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her cover. She wasn't a bureaucrat. She was a NOC.

      From the SAME Newsday article

      "In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

      His wife's "ability to do the job she's been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak's article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer," he said."

      Oops. She was a spy dumbass

    7. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dumbass, If you ever were a clandestine operative your identity must remain secret to protect the CIA front company, other current operatives, and to not tip off all of the people you have been interacting with over the years of your clandestine service.

      Your insinuation that if she wasn't out in the field doing a clandestine operation at the time she was outed there was no harm done, is complete nonsense! Her career got F'ed up because of some politician didn't like her husband spilling the truth out to the press. Jail all the bastards involved.

    8. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by donutz · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the ongoing investigation, his quotes could cut either way. On its own, that quote: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity" could mean that she wasn't a NOC because of Novak, or that she wasn't a NOC even before Novak's story came out.

      "In fact, when host Wolf Blitzer specifically asked Wilson if his wife 'hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before' Novak's column was published, Wilson responded that he could not comment on her past status as an undercover officer"

      So he's not saying one way or the other whether she was a NOC on that day...gotta watch them bureaucrats...always mincing words. Let's hold tight and see what the investigation reports.

    9. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by prockcore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Regardless of the ongoing investigation, his quotes could cut either way

      True, which is why he clarified it today.

      "In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand."

    10. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      No they don't. Read my quotes. They clearly state that she waqs no longer a NOC because her cover was blown - Also blowing the cover of every associate of hers at her cover company and undoubtedly many of her sources.

      Wilson saying he couldn't comment is the minimum you are supposed to do. That data was classified and her past status is classified. That's why you don't talk about it.

    11. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by graikor · · Score: 1

      What he said was more along the lines of "my wife ceased being a clandestine officer the day Robert Novak blew her identity." That has exactly the opposite spin of your phrasing, and for good reason - although she was still operating out of Langley, she was still working in the field of WMDs, and she was doing so undercover, with a staff of other undercover agents.

      I don't know why treason is now considered acceptable by the Republican Party, but secret agents like Plame work hard and risk their lives (she travelled with an ordinary passport, and was likely to be executed if caught as a spy) to protect our country. I think we owe them better than to out them because of mean-spirited, lying political B.S.

      If she wasn't a covert agent, smart guy, then why does the CIA insist that she was - they wouldn't have reported it as a crime if she weren't still a covert agent. If there was no crime, then why did a special prosecutor (appointed by Bush, no less) feel this issue was so important he was willing to send 2 reporters to jail unless they named their sources, one of whom is still in jail now?

    12. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Relevant quote from article:
      Wilson also said "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.""

      Please don't misinterpret the quote. Of course she wasn't clandestine THE MOMENT ANYONE BLEW HER COVER! I'm not saying she was clandestine when Novak wrote his column. I don't know. Just please _PLEASE_ think before posting. (Of course, I'm not sure why Fitzgerald, a Republican, would be persuing the case if no laws were broken.)

    13. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      It depends on what the meaning of "was" was.

    14. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      "In fact, when host Wolf Blitzer specifically asked Wilson if his wife 'hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before' Novak's column was published, Wilson responded that he could not comment on her past status as an undercover officer"

      So he's not saying one way or the other whether she was a NOC on that day...gotta watch them bureaucrats...always mincing words.

      He could not comment on that because that information is quite probably still classified. Just because a covert operative's cover gets blown doesn't mean it's automatically OK to go around talking about that covert operative's activities; doing so could result in the exposure of even more classified information.

      As for the parsing of Wilson's statements, sure, it could be read in a number of ways. One could divine, for example, that Joe Wilson is stupid enough to actually think that Robert Novak physically blew a big puff of air onto his wife's identity. One could also conclude that Wilson is claiming that Novak had oral sex with Plame's identity. One could even surmise that Wilson is suggesting that Plame was on a little 24-hour vacation from the whole clandestine agent thing, and that day just happened to be the same day that Novak outed her.

      Of course, you'd need to be a mendacious ass bent on discrediting Joe Wilson by any means possible to even begin to think the sort of linguistic acrobatics detailed above are accurate representations of the point Joe Wilson was trying to get across.

      Then again, if you want to play the quotes game, I'll give you a few to chew on, courtesy of the Associated Press:

      Sept. 29, 2003 [White House Briefing]

      Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

      A [Scott McClellan]: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

      Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

      A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

      Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?"

      A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

      ...care to parse this one out? Was Rove lying to the President and his spokesman, or was the President's spokesman lying to the press?

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    15. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by donutz · · Score: 1

      "In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand."

      So he meant that she lost her ability to be a covert agent...that doesn't mean she was covert at the time of Novak's story. It doesn't mean she wasn't covert at the time either. It just means from that point onward, there's no way she could ever be covert.

    16. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No Spy, No Crime.

      Not true. I believe (though I have no proof) that if you ever were a spy, that fact will always remain classified. She could have already retired and it would still be a crime.

    17. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      What about her cover company Brewster Jennings & Associates? There's a reason you don't out intelligence agents. There is a HUGE amount of collateral damage. It's got a Wikipedia entry as a front company for the CIA now. No damage done to intelligence there.

    18. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he's not saying one way or another. If his wife were an undercover agent and he confirmed it, he would be commiting a crime.

      The fact that it was already out there is probably irrelevant from a legal point of view. I used to work for a defense contractor with secret clearance. We weren't allowed to talk about our project. Occasionally we would read articles in trade journals describing what we were working on - details that were classified (but unimportant) - but we still weren't allowed to talk about them. I imagine the same thing applies to Wilson.

    19. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by donutz · · Score: 1

      What about her cover company Brewster Jennings & Associates? There's a reason you don't out intelligence agents. There is a HUGE amount of collateral damage.

      I'm not arguing about that. Depending on the work done by people sharing her cover company, there may have been a lot of collateral damage as you suggest (or maybe they were a useless bunch who didn't get anything useful done. Who knows but the CIA, right? ;-)

      All I'm saying is that Mr. Wilson isn't being entirely clear about her status immediately before the news broke, at least not to my satisfaction. Let's see what the investigators conclude.

    20. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      A digression...
      The interrogator's question is not
      "How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?", as a loving husband could answer "0 months",
      but rather
      "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?"

      as a "Yes" could be an admission of abuse in the past, and a "No" is a admission of continuing abuse. Attempting a more complex answer could be taken as evidence of dissemblance...

      Orwell pointed out that many writers, too lazy to invent novel metaphors capable of evoking a powerful visual image, use worn out ones instead, and sometimes mix incompatible phrases together: "a sure sign that the author is not interested in what he is saying."

    21. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by donutz · · Score: 1

      Sept. 29, 2003 [White House Briefing]

      Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

      A [Scott McClellan]: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.


      Well, I don't know exactly what McClellan said that morning prior to the briefing, so when he said "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved", I don't know in what the president knew Rove wasn't involved. Was he not involved in knowingly divulging classified information? Or was he not involved in this whole mess at all? What was the whole quote?

    22. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of what Wilson said was true? That the administration had sent him to Africa (not at the suggestion of his wife)?

    23. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the correct phrase is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

      The guilt is asserted in the act of asking the question. Such is how the media (mostly the radical Left) is asking the question.

    24. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe (though i have no proof) that there is life on the Moon.

    25. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know what happens to Novak and Rove if the CIA walks into court and tells them that some undercovers and/or innocent civilians got bullets in the head from foreign governments because they were associated with Plume and/or her cover company.

    26. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      President Cheney will just pardon the whole bunch.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    27. Re:"How Long Have You Been Beating Your Wife?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe (though I have no proof other than your post) that you're a cockgobbling moron.

      ~~~

  24. Wow! by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny
    I could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares.


    A house in a residential area? With easy access by car? And no moats or dragons near by? This must be some sort of top secret CIA house of the future!

    Sensationalism at its finest.

    -Peter
    1. Re:Wow! by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

      Nah ... if the house didn't showup in Google, that would be something to sensationalize about.

      Brings to mind an interesting project for someone to do - compare Google's overhead maps to low-altitude aerial maps on file around the country ...

      I'd bet there's stuff Google has been directed to obscure/omit from their maps *of the U.S.* by the government - ie. is Bush's ranch shown in complete detail? Camp David? etc...

      Ron

  25. cowboy neal by mars9820 · · Score: 0

    I still don't know where he lives, what he does, how much he makes a year. Well one thing for sure. He doesn't work for the CIA ;)..else he would be in google ;)

  26. Technology is a sword .... by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've heard this a LOT ...
    Technology is like a sword or a gun

    It's used and misused by both sides
    Or in other words, you can do Evil with Google maps. But that doesn't make Google maps evil (maybe CIA might not see it that well).

    Essentially it lets me peek at a street address in NYC sitting here in Bangalore. I can plan and co-ordinate my ops to snuff out someone - especially if the operatives are expendable. Recon became a lot easier , especially of the aerial map kind.

    <sarcasm> How long before we hear that a terrorist attack was planned using Google Maps ? </sarcasm>
    1. Re:Technology is a sword .... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Hah! You can't find where I work using Google maps. The building was only built 18 months ago, and Google's satellite footage isn't that recent...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Technology is a sword .... by yesheh · · Score: 1

      I would guess then that their sat maps do not fit google's mission statement "Don't be evil". yesheh

    3. Re:Technology is a sword .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I bet google could relatively easily detect suspicious patterns of viewing high-value targets from small groups in the Middle East.

      Of course, we might just accidently smart bomb some Syrians planning their summer vacation. :)

    4. Re:Technology is a sword .... by payndz · · Score: 1
      I've been researching the National Security Agency for a novel I'm writing. The part of Fort Meade, MD, that's home to the NSA is largely a blank space on US maps, even Google Maps.

      However, switch to 'satellite' view on Google Maps, zoom in, take a bunch of screencaps, and with an hour or so's assembly work in Photoshop you too can have a large, hi-res, full-colour map of the NSA that probably beats in detail anything the Soviets could obtain in the entire Cold War! Ain't technology great?

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    5. Re:Technology is a sword .... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Clever... tho I'm reminded of this:

      There was an episode of "Under Cover" (the wonderful tho short-lived 1991 series with John Rhys-Davies) where this young and still-full-of-himself agent was allowed to "accidentally" discover some satellite images showing hitherto-unknown Russian missile silos. So he runs to his superiors to brag about his find... and after he's made a sufficiently large fool of himself, an elder agent takes him into the imaging room and shows him the original satellite photos, with several condoms overlaid on the image. Who'da thunk condoms looked so much like silos? :)

      [eyeing tagline] Sounds like something Sir Aubrey would say :)

      Good luck with your novel, from a big Craig Thomas fan.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  27. $GOOGLE_RM_FUNCTION ( "Sarah Conner" ) by digital+photo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine if the Terminator had access to the net, as it is now. "Taking Out" all Sarah Conners within a given mile radius is a simple matter of mapping software, addressbooks, and a name+area to target.

    Now, you could locate and plan "events" around individuals throughout the US/world.

    No need for super computers... with a few PCs and access to the various API's on the net, you too can have your own war-room and tactical planning system.

    1. Re:$GOOGLE_RM_FUNCTION ( "Sarah Conner" ) by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      Hmmm....I beleive this is called the "Traveling Terminator Problem"

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    2. Re:$GOOGLE_RM_FUNCTION ( "Sarah Conner" ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had technology from the era the terminator came from in the movie then presumably gps resolution would be excellent. I see no particular reason why that kind of technology couldn't be setup to take out a group of names. Simply find the home address, find the gps coordinates, and send simultaneous cruise missiles at 3am. Heck they could almost do it now.. Of course then the movie would have lasted 5 minutes, if they sent that kind of thing back...

    3. Re:$GOOGLE_RM_FUNCTION ( "Sarah Conner" ) by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      That's kinda sorta what the evil Terminator did in T3. She took her cell phone out, connected (using her mouth as a modem) to something and d/l'd the names and faces of several secondary targets.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    4. Re:$GOOGLE_RM_FUNCTION ( "Sarah Conner" ) by soda · · Score: 1
      Imagine if the Terminator had access to the net, as it is now. "Taking Out" all Sarah Conners within a given mile radius is a simple matter of mapping software, addressbooks, and a name+area to target.
      Then I guess Sarah Connor would be quite safe, then. ;)
  28. Look to the nerds for help. by HyperChicken · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Time to pollute Google and the likes with fake information. Websites containing boat loads of fake names, addresses, and phone numbers.

    Who's with me?!

    --
    Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    1. Re:Look to the nerds for help. by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      That will help a lot when they're getting details for their maps with pictures from satellite. And I'm sure everyone would love to list fake phone numbers - after all, you don't need to ever actually use your phone right?

  29. The Crowley Files: A list of 2,619 C.I.A. agents by tommyleebyron · · Score: 0

    Here's the full list... AKA the The Crowley Files a list of 2,619 C.I.A. agents and ex agents http://www.gertrude.it/pages_31549.html

  30. easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by theodicey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When Robert Novak disclosed of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA operative, the firm (Brewster-Jennings) which was the cover for her counterproliferation work, and presumably many others', was also totally compromised.

    Of course it's not that hard to find out where someone is working (in this case, the existence of Brewster-Jennings wasn't a secret, but the fact that it was a CIA front was).

    But the CIA would have had more time to make sure its agents and assets were secure if the company hadn't been listed on her election contribution records. You can see them at Open Secrets

    I'm not saying that campaign contribution disclosure is a bad thing. It's essential to the media and bloggers investigating governmental corruption.

    But this is more pathetic evidence that Karl Rove, and everyone else involved at the White House, just didn't care. They were far more interested in retaliation and their own political gain than in the lives that were endangered, and the millions of dollars that were wasted.

    1. Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm curious what evidence you've looked at. What I've seen is:

      • Karl Rove was told Plame worked for the CIA by the media.
      • Joe Wilson admits his wife wasn't undercover.
      • CIA agent who helped train Plame claims she wasn't undercover.
      • Andrea Mitchell admits it was widely known in DC circles that Plame was CIA.
      • Plame's "deep cover" consisted of working at a company which only existed on paper, while driving everyday to CIA's office in Langley.


      Perhaps if the CIA didn't want that front company exposed they shouldn't have sent a partisan hack to Niger and then allowed him to lie about it in the NYT.

    2. Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by Packet+Pusher · · Score: 1

      Does partisan hack mean someone who wasn't blinded by bloodlust?

      I'm sorry I must have missed the article where they found the WMD and all the terrorist cells that were used as the justification for going to war in the first place.

    3. Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by theodicey · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Excellent, the Republican talking points troll.
      1. Who cares? Rove passed the information on to (at least) Matthew Cooper, which is stupid, irresponsible and possibly illegal. Anyway, this is just the excuse du jour from Rove's lawyer.
      2. If she wasn't undercover, then why did the CIA ask for a grand jury investigation? Anwyay, what he he said was that the day Bob Novak outed his wife she ceased to be an undercover operative once she was outed.
      3. Completely wrong
      4. If it was so well known, why was it necessary for the White House to spread the story? (Note that Mitchell was one of the people they spread it to, and is the only person to make this claim.)
      5. You don't know much about covers, do you? So was she supposed to be making widgets in a CIA-owned factory?

      and finally:

      OMFG!!! THE CIA IS TRYING TO BRING DOWN OUR GREAT LEADER W IN A SECRET CONSPIRACY!!!

    4. Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by cryogenix · · Score: 1

      Ya I agree, it's sort of like Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Ron Wyden and John Rockefeller outted a top secret spy satellite system... Apparently when the Democrats compromise national security (which seems to be an ongoing theme), nobody cares. That's not to say Republicans should be let off the hook, they should not, but call your fouls equally.

    5. Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Letter to my Senators and Representative:

      With all of the talk about Karl Rove's involvement in the leak of Valerie Plame's job at the CIA and postition as a NCO, why is the real damage caused not being discussed again?

      The cover company that Mrs. Plame worked for - Brewser-Jennings & Assoc. - was also identified by this leak. What damage has THAT caused by potentially revealing other secret agents and contacts???

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-20 03Oct3?language=printer

      http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou =0&txtName=wilson%2C+valerie&txtState=DC&txtZip=&t xtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N

    6. Re:easy to blow the entire CIA front firm too by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      Well,... let me help you catch up on your reading about Iraq's ties to terrorists. There is plenty more that isn't hard to find if you really care to be informed.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  31. You're Right: And... Nothing by cmholm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jesus, could this "story's" headline be any less thought out? When Adm. Poindexter was leading the Total Information Awareness project, this sort of digital dumpster diving was news three years ago. If someone wants to report on something fresh, they'll need to exploit search engines to find agents when you don't know who they are.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:You're Right: And... Nothing by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      I jsut googled for "CIA Agents" and got over 1.6 Million hits. That's a lot of agents.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:You're Right: And... Nothing by MST3K · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear God! The CIA has only been around for 58 years... that means there are 27,500 new agents each year. And with no known natural predators left post-USSR, they're reproducing like rabbits. What ever shall we do?

    3. Re:You're Right: And... Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no kidding.

    4. Re:You're Right: And... Nothing by wik · · Score: 1

      That's easy, just roll it into the department of homeland security. That'll suck the oxygen out of any organization.

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
  32. Now if... by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    Now, if the joint Cisco/CIA joint development project Bullets Over IP, or BOIP would have some successful field tests... /The Man With The Golden Cable Modem

    --
    MadOgre.com
  33. Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak

    haw haw haw! better luck next time, Dems.

    1. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like typical republicans... taking no responsibility. Of course Rove is going to point the finger at someone else. Anyone surprised about that?

      Beyond this, it's not about republicans or democrats. It's about national security.

    2. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by mbbac · · Score: 1

      Even if that is true, Rove still committed a treasonous act by relaying the information.

      --

      mbbac

    3. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he didn't because he didn't relay the information.

    4. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by fonetik · · Score: 1
      This must be some wild new use of the word "Insightful" that I was previously unaware of.

    5. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by saskboy · · Score: 1

      And you're so confident that your phony information is true, that you posted anonymously?

      Rove's own lawyer has admitted Rove's involved, and Bush has more than once promised to fire anyone involved so Bush is a liar on top of this scandal too. And to remind you, this scandal is about tricking Congress and the American people into thinking Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Africa. Wilson knew that wasn't true, and by going over Bush's head, he prompted Karl Rove to take revenge on him and his family.

      That's why we're talking about this, because it's a big smelly scandal by a big smelly group around Bush.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    6. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

      This is true. "Fact" and "Insightful" rarely go together on Slashdot. The grandparent is a rare case.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    7. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, Novak comes out looking like a dope, unless he can prove that Plame's position in the CIA was well known. The linked article may support your beliefs, but it's full of factual inaccuracies, namely, it characterizes the intelligence as "faulty", when we know:

      * The Niger intelligence was never proven false, however, the media is content with repeating "Bush lied!" until we're all brainwashed. The only intel source that said it was false is Wilson, and when the Senate pressed him on it, he screwed up his testimony and cited a piece of information that didn't yet exist at the time of his "investigation".

      * British and Italian intelligence gatherers did not withdraw their reports.

      * Saddam had 500+ tons of uranium ore in storage.

      So which intelligence is faulty? Probably Wilson's, who isn't even qualified to investigate. Saddam's Iraq procured uranium or from somewhere. Let's see, it probably wasn't from Utah...

    8. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you move to Iraq? The President says it's a wonderful democracy that's getting better every month and the insurgency is on it's last legs.

    9. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News is breaking that Novak called the CIA and had his article cleared before publishing it.

    10. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by ta+ma+de · · Score: 1

      It is likely that Rove, Dick and Bush lied to investigators, though nothing will come of this. Move along now.

    11. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill clinton also said he didn't have sexual relations with monica lewinsky.

    12. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by chewties · · Score: 1

      So who was Novak's source and why is Novak not in hot water over this?

    13. Re:Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak by deanj · · Score: 1

      You realize everything you said was BS, unless you believe that England is lying for Bush too. That's where that report Bush cited was from.

      And you also realize that Wilson's statements about who sent them there in the first place (he said it was Cheney) turned out to be a lie too, right? The bi-partisan panel that investigated it proved it:

      Let's take a look at the actual words of the Report, whose findings are bipartisanly approved.

      "Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable (..redaction..) Requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additinoal information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told hm "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

      The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (..long redaction..). The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region (..redaction..).

      ------------

      Wow! They even got Wilson involved! They're so tricky!

  34. Re:Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1990 called, they want their PR bullshit back...

    1989 called, they want their joke back. :)

  35. hey editors, this crosses every line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is wrong with you? you've approved a story with comments obviously written by some nasty little boy with an interest in getting some home-invasion, harassment, and personal assault fun going. this poor woman doesn't even qualify as a voluntarily public figure, because she was outed for revenge. let me guess, this is the time to fall back on "uh, like, freedom of speech dude, you can't make me, nyah nyah"?

  36. Re:Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by CubicStar · · Score: 1

    Also consider this

  37. Re: Not so by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    What about associates of hers from when she did work oversees as a spy? If any of them are also clandestine agents, then they're compromised.

  38. Re:Um... by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

    And looks similar to many other properties all throughout the country ...

    If there were large walls around the property and/or other unusual structures, etc, then that certainly could raise suspicions - the best spys are typically those who blend in ... one shouldn't be surprised to hear of spys living in typical houses in boring neighborhoods in which no one is the wiser to who they truly are.

    To expand on this thought - I don't see how search engines like Google is any real threat to real spys ... if anything, the internet can be a plus for those spys who (and/or their support staffs) understand how to create/maintain a pseudo-personality in cyberspace that doesn't truly reflect reality; people often believe what they see on the internet (goes for TV, etc too) without much thought.

    Ron

  39. Black and White Thinking (TM) by xactuary · · Score: 1

    Fine by me, but if Black and White Thinking (TM) survives the present administration, it'll be a freaking miracle.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  40. Re:Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by team99parody · · Score: 1
    In this case, the government might seek to inject as much contradictory information as it can.

    For example strategies that the government discussed like this one: "These e-mails would come from a .com return address rather than .mil to hide the Pentagon's role."

    They could as easily conceal through information polution the info that showed up in these google searches.

  41. Pararnoia by Palal · · Score: 1

    Now the government can be paranoid too, not just me!

    --
    -Palal
    1. Re:Pararnoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pararnoia

      You should be, you never know with luring grammar Nazi's.

  42. Re:Um... by Iriel · · Score: 1

    The point is how much detail you can gather about someone, their personal information, and where they live just through a search engine. Google isn't the only possible culprit for this kind of thing either. If you take a look at most search engines that have an image only search, you can gather a wealth of information and scanned records that allow so many people out there to commit identity theft without even sorting through the trash.

    I'm not trying to give (bad) advice, but some people have information about them on the net that they never knew was out there. Back in the early days of the identity theft scare, there were plenty of articles online urging people to be careful about what information they disclose about themselves on the internet and what may be out there without them even posting anything (see also: telephone directories).

    Never before have I been happier to keep myself unlisted.

    --
    Perfecting Discordia
    www.stevenvansickle.com
  43. Re:Boobies by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

    Well, the problem with this approach is that, while it does generate a lot of hits in Google, it's very hard to get specific information about people. In other words, it's really hard to match specific boobies to CIA-agents.

    --
    When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
  44. In other news, George Bush' wife is named Laura by sharkb8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I doesn't matter that the author was able to look her name in Google. He had to find out that she was a covert operative before he would know to look her up.

    And for what it's worth, it would have been faster to look in "Who's Who in Washington". It list Joseph Wilson, and that he is married to Valerie Wilson. However, nothing this writer looked up told him that she was a covert operative.

    THe information he found had nothing to do with her status at the CIA. He knew who someone was and looked up their name. I can see it now:

    NEXT ON FOX: covert CIA operatives' cover busted by... COLLEGE FACEBOOKS. COULD IT HAPPEN TO YOU?

    1. Re:In other news, George Bush' wife is named Laura by Palal · · Score: 1

      Well...here's something: Zabasearch LAURA W BUSH Nov 1946 1010 COLORADO ST AUSTIN TX Google Maps GEORGE W BUSH Jul 1946 1010 COLORADO ST AUSTIN TX GEORGE BUSH 1100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW WASHINGTON DC

      --
      -Palal
    2. Re:In other news, George Bush' wife is named Laura by sharkb8 · · Score: 1

      But the thing is, YOU ALREADY KNOW HE'S THE PRESIDENT. And if you're looking for his current address, it's 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washingto D.C.

  45. Fake Names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like "Hyperchicken?"

    1. Re:Fake Names by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

      Exactly. No one knows my real name is Rex Banner.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
  46. Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So Google lets you look at satellite photos of addresses. Which photos have already been available, even on the Internet, for a few bucks to anyone. So what? Foreign spy agencies have the bucks for satellite photos. And if they can't find the home address of an Ambassador's wife, they're not very good spies - they're not going to pull off ther rest of their spy operation on her house.

    The entire point here is that someone *cough*Karl Rove*cough* released the secret association between Valerie Plame's identity, and her job as CIA operative. That is the point in the dataflow that is sensitive. It has nothing to do with Google. Hell, I'd like to see you Google someone's house based on their Slashdot userID, let alone a CIA secret identity, without someone leaking that less than "top secret" association.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Google Me This, Batman by doombob · · Score: 1

      By googling your Slashdot userID, I have come to the conclusion that you are a female horse living in South Carolina

    2. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Shadowlore · · Score: 1, Informative
      The entire point here is that someone *cough*Karl Rove*cough* released the secret association between Valerie Plame's identity, and her job as CIA operative.

      Clearly Doc Ruby did not readeth the Article. In the article, the only way the author connected the name Valeri Plame with the story is becuase he already knew it. If as we are told KR said thet Wilson's wife arranged for the trip go from there. The article did.

      Now let us think about something here. You get to be a female "secret agent". You need a fake name. DO you
      a) pick your MAIDEN NAME
      b) pick a name not previously related to you in any way

      Uh gee Wally, you pick option b.

      According to the stories (so far), KR did not ID her as an operative, just someone working for the CIA.

      Accordign to Novak, KR's story rings true:
      "During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

      At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."


      Here he says he heard from a non-"gunslinger" the scoop and another confirmed he heard the same thing. Would you describe KR as not a "partisan gunslinger"? I doubt many would. Combine this with KR's recent statements that say Novack told him and it rings true.

      Further, there *appears* to be no dispute that she fall sunder the protection of the aforementioned Act of 1982. She apparently had a desk job and had not been a NOC for over 5 years, removing her from that category.

      Again though, to me using your previous/maiden name as your "undercover name" is not an affirmative action to keep your identity secret. If she used a different name, not one publicly tied to her, the trail would have gone cold quite quickly.

      Think about it. Assume she did go overseas undercover, and used that name. Any foreign government worth it's salt could track her down quite easily even in the 1990s. All they'd have had to do would have been to search on her name and follow the trail the other way. When it didn't match the story they got they'd assume her an agent. Any connections to her they found would be assumed agency covers or other agents.

      The point? Your alleged "Secret CIA identity" was not a secret. Even if "apparently works for" was left out, the mere mention of Wilson's wife being involved would have sent any reporter looking to see who she was. Following that trail as it is woudl have raised *many* questions all of it's own accord.
      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    3. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a crock. If Rove is protecting the US national security, his job, he responds to questions from reporters asking about a CIA WMD operative with "I don't know", not "she's CIA/WMD". Regardless of his political gain, Rove cannot, as a White House employee, even confirm that someone is CIA, especially during the run up to a war over WMD. That violates national security, that is treason. Rove might have been smart enough not to pick an enemy protected by the laws so far discussed, but he cannot do what he clearly did. And he cannot then lie to the public, claiming "I had nothing to do with it", when he clearly did.

      So you go ahead apologizing for Rove's selfserving attack on a CIA agent. You go ahead patronizing a guy attacking our WMD intelligence system as cover for lies about Iraqi uranium purchases that never existed. You go ahead running cover for the people we have protecting us, who instead lie to invade countries they prefer, instead of finishing the legitimate invasions they're piggybacking on. Go ahead, because you're a traitor too.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Google Me This, Batman by canolecaptain · · Score: 1

      The Rhetoric on this subject is amazing. It appears that most of the posters on this subject haven't bothered to listen or dig up the truth - just spew prior spun propaganda.

      She hadn't worked undercover for over 9 years; simply stating that someone works for the CIA does not blow their cover unless they are on 'assignment' - which again, she was not; an interview on the radio yesterday (Boston, MA) with 2 of the individuals that wrote the law Rove is accused of violating (one man, one woman) stated clearly that the facts simply don't add up to what is being claimed by the press or the Dems, further evidence now points out that Rove was told that information by another reporter, etc, etc.

      This is purely a witch hunt by the minority party to attempt some mud slinging.

      Wake up and smell what you're shoveling. Sheesh. One would think that the 'geeks' of all people would search for the facts before joining the slinging.

    5. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      She hadn't worked undercover for over 9 years; simply stating that someone works for the CIA does not blow their cover unless they are on 'assignment' - which again, she was not;
      I'm not sure why you would state this as fact when clearly there is a lot of debate about this, and no official word one way or the other about her NOC status.

      But just to use a little bit of common sense--when they began the grand jury investigation, wouldn't the FIRST step have been to determine whether or not she was a covert agent? This would have been a trivial step for them to perform, and if it was decided that she was not, it would have brought everything to a screeching halt, since no law would have been broken. However, the investigation has been going for some time now...

    6. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where were you people and your "it's not secret" bullshit when the leak occured a few years ago.

      I don't remember Bush saying anything to the effect of "oh, no classified information was leaked, this is deal." I recall him saying quite the opposite, in fact:


      "I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."


      And now you're telling the world that no classified information was leaked at all, and the DOJ really shouldn't have started this investigation? What the fuck ever.
    7. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The admin did this to themselves. There wouldn't be nearly as much hype around this story if they had just said "We will be looking into it along with the special prosecutor." Instead of "That's ridiculous." and offering that anyone involved in the Valerie Plame affair would be fired.

      A CIA agents identity was released. Although not an active undercover agent at the time, we don't know how many of (formerly) her assets were compromised. Assets are often handed off to other agents. Once she was exposed, any currently covert agent that might currently be working with one of her former assets is exposed by proxy.

      (The words assets, exposed and proxy all in the same paragraph...calm down geeks.)

      2. Lies and obfuscations. After Wilson had publicly accused Rove of leaking his wife's identity the White House (through McClellan) disavowed any knowledge. "That's ridiculous", I believe was the response. Also, according to the boss, anyone who was found to be leaking information they shouldn't have would be fired.

      An identity is not just a name. If I say, "the guy who worked for company z and is married to jane doe", I've identified someone.

      Also, assume that someone has leaked an ex-covert's name to me. I then tell a reporter that there is an ex-covert married to Jane Doe. I didn't tell the reporter his name but I have effectively leaked his identity. Without being a higher-up in a Presidential administration, do you think the DoJ would be so nice to me?

      "Oh, he didn't commit a crime. Move along, nothing to see here." ?

      dictionary.reference.com
      identity
      1. The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known: "If the broadcast group is the financial guts of the company, the news division is its public identity" (Bill Powell).
      2. The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.
      3. The quality or condition of being the same as something else.
      4. The distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality.

    8. Re:Google Me This, Batman by shyster · · Score: 1
      Again though, to me using your previous/maiden name as your "undercover name" is not an affirmative action to keep your identity secret. If she used a different name, not one publicly tied to her, the trail would have gone cold quite quickly.

      Not that I work for the CIA or anything, but I could come up with a few plausible reasons to use your own (maiden or otherwise) name undercover.

      It's much easier to use a real name and have a verifiable (and easily known to you) backstory, than it would be to completely fictionalize 35+ years of your life and remember it - possibly under duress.. By comparison, it's pretty easy to omit key information from your true story - such as having been hired by the CIA.

      Then, of course, there's the need to keep up appearances after the fact. Again, easier to use a real person that has a real verifiable life than to continue the charade of a fictional character indefinitely. Searching for a former business associate and coming up completely empty in the last 9 years might raise some concern.

      At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered.

      Just out of curiousity, I wonder what sort of "difficulties" Novak thought she might encounter? Airport delays? Autograph seekers and paparazzi? It shouldn't take a mental genius to put (former) CIA spy + foreign gov't = bad news together and come to the conclusion that "difficulties" might be a euphemism for possible serious danger.

    9. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're nuts. Rove claims that "all he knew" was that she was CIA working on WMD, and that she sent her husband to Niger to research the uranium document. Well, how then did Rove know that she wasn't undercover? How then did he take the risk that she wasn't? If he isn't lying, then he recklessly endangered national security and WMD while he was whipping the country into a war frenzy over WMD. Which, incidentally, did not exist. So even taking Rove at his word: he endangered CIA WMD networks, to protect his lie that Iraq had WMD so we would invade. That's treason.

      What did he indisputably lie about? He lied about his involvement in the leak. Publicly, several times. And maybe he lied to Bush, too, about his involvement, so Bush would repeat that he wasn't involved - a coverup. Or, more likely, he told Bush what he had done, and Bush lied too. To cover up the treason of the guy who's whispered in his ear all the way from failed drunk to reelected president.

      Those people work for the people of the US. Not just the people who voted for them (about 50% of voters, about 22% of Americans). They can't use their office for partisan hackery on the public's time. Especially not to cover up their lies about Iraqi uranium, and especially not taking revenge on a legitimate truthteller about those lies by arbitrarily endangering his family, and especially not by attacking CIA operations, and especially not in WMD while they're taking us to war, and especially if they don't know what the effects will be. Once we get to through that series of forbidden actions, the degree of the attack on America's national security is so severe that it is obviously treason.

      If you're going to call such treason a "partisan" matter, then you've only created a partisan position for yourself. You are backing, explicitly, a party now defined by treason. Which makes you a traitor. For what, to prop up your president by covering up his staff's treason, so he won't have to keep doing his job without the guy who actually knows how to do it? Isn't that the most cowardly policy that you've ever heard? Or is it just the way you and your party need to work, because they can't do anything for America except destroy us?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Damit, you have outed my wife's identity undercover among the Christian Taliban.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Rove cannot, as a White House employee, even confirm that someone is CIA, especially during the run up to a war over WMD

      By all reports, he didn't know with any certainty if she did. Allegedly, Cooper says Rove said, "I've heard that too, from another reporter."

      I haven't found a copy of the e-mail from Rove to Cooper, just excerpts in articles. If you have a link, pass it along.

      It sounds like he was trying to figure it out. He'd be pretty dumb to release Cooper from his secrecy obligations if that were a smoking gun. But who was that other reporter? Judith Miller? What is she hiding anyway?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      As I said, someone with a top-secret security clearance, top advisor to the president, party to all the highest-level operations to protect America's national security, top architect of the "terror war", doesn't confirm a reporter's fishing about a CIA/WMD agent, even if that's all he really did. What he says is "I don't know", or "I can't comment" or "I cannot confirm or deny that". When he says "she's CIA/WMD", he says "your story that discredits her husband is more import to me than the national security I'm guarding". That's treason, that's despicable. None of this parsing and looking for excuses to let Rove off the hook is anything but Republican partisan politics. And the most shameful practitioners, outside Republican elected officials also responsible for national security, are the members of the media, like the traitors on Fox News, who are wracking their brains for ways out for Rove, when he has betrayed us all, and continues to do so every day he's in the White House, smirking at our safety because he's so sure of his.

      As for Miller, McClellan, Cheney and Bush, we'll be finding out more as the investigation itself proceeds to take public actions. But until then, all we can be sure from all their public statements, is that Karl Rove is a traitor, leaking at least confirmation of Plame's CIA/WMD status.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      As I said, someone with a top-secret security clearance ... doesn't confirm a reporter's fishing

      Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen all the time? "Quoting unnamed senior administration officials" is such a common line in news stories it's become a phrase. Maybe it's not right in a black and white world, but it's how things work in Washington. If you want to argue senior officials shouldn't leak that's an entirely different and much bigger topic.

      he says "your story that discredits her husband is more import to me than the national security I'm guarding".

      That's an interesting point. He knew Joe Wilson was lying in the NYT op-ed and from what he heard from the other reporter he thought he was lying about how he got picked for the job. But he couldn't disclose the CIA intelligence yet he wanted to blow the whistle on Wilson. Ostensibly that's what he was talking to Cooper about - not going too far with Wilson's story.

      We have good reason to believe Rove didn't actually know Plame was an NCO since the CIA doesn't share that information with the White House. It sounds like he was trying to lead Cooper to check on whether the Plame information was, in fact, correct, probably to lead him down the path of discrediting Wilson. There's no doubt there was political motivation here - the question at hand is whether Rove did anything that was wrong.

      That's treason

      Can you commit treason if you haven't committed any crimes?

      when he has betrayed us all

      Wait, that was Wilson's role in this. He blew his CIA status without clearance and lied about the information in his report in the NYT. If Rove was trying to expose the truth of the matter here it's hard to argue he was 'betraying us'.

      and continues to do so every day he's in the White House

      Interesting - do you have information that he's conducting illegal activities at the White House?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you're getting this "it's Wilson's fault" line, except maybe from Rove's lawyer. Even if Wilson's report that the Niger report was false was wrong (and where is the evidence for that? Where is the Iraqi uranium? Where are the WMD? Nowhere.), it's not Rove's job to contradict it. If, as a top presidential aide with top-secret clearance, his job to protect national security requires that the stories be contradicted with "facts", then all he can do is to send the reporters to CIA, NSA, State, or someone else whose job is to carefully communicate national security issues to the press, without jeopardizing national security. He can leak info if he wants, either for political gain or for his perceived duty to protect the "truth" as he sees it. But he's taking the risk that, if caught, he'll suffer the consequences. As he is now.

      We also don't have anything like "good reason" to know anything about what Rove did or knew, except what he has admitted - which is of course suspect - and what is in the evidence gained from reporters' notes - which is of course also subject to testing as evidence. But according to Rove's confession, he at least confirmed a CIA/WMD identity, without knowing (or being able to know) what would be the consequences. He wasn't even able to discredit Wilson, mainly because Wilson's debunking the story has been upheld, as we would expect from someone who has served American national security without legitimate complaints.

      Is Rove's cavalier treatment (at least) of a CIA agent's mission treason? Of course it is. We don't give security clearance like his to people who will breach it for their political agenda. He's not authorized to talk about CIA work like Plame's with the press, and any grey area has to be resolved to "shut up". Shouldn't it go without saying that "there's a war on"? Supposedly over WMD, in Iraq, backed by no one as fully as Rove? There should never be any chance that Rove's mouth will do anything but increase our chances of winning the wars he's helped us get into. When he does the opposite, putting us at greater risk, he creates a threat to our national security. That's not some theoretical ethical question, it's operational security, and totally obvious.

      Creating threats to national security by one's actions is treason. Treason by the president's top advisor is, of course, extremely serious. If you want to lawyer this thing by asking whether he's committed "any crimes", when you're referring to whether he broke the specific law against revealing secret CIA identities as has been published in the press, you're just trying to find a way out. The grand jury will determine what laws he might have broken. A court will determine whether he actually broke those laws. But it's perfectly clear that Rove has committed treason against the United States, which he is powerfully obligated to protect.

      Now, you're insisting on blaming Wilson. Where is your evidence that he had "CIA status" that was secret? Where is any evidence that he lied in his NYT report? You're just parroting Rove's lawyer's lies about Wilson, sticking to their only strategy in their entire operation: discredit Wilson, to hide the fact that they lied about Niger/Iraq uranium. Even if that fabricated story were true, that wouldn't justify Rove's leak. If Rove were so concerned, he could easily have done his job, getting Bush to tell Tenet to get the CIA to discredit Wilson. Instead, the CIA has demanded that the leak be investigated, slapping back Rove, who has moved beyond his "political advisor" role, into monkeying with intelligence operations. Just that important, flagrant breach of protocol, especially with intelligence abuse at the center of Rove's huge Iraq project, is totally unacceptable. As is rushing to his defense, speculating that Karl Rove's leaking CIA info to discredit his political enemies is somehow "protecting us".

      And how does Rove's continuing to work at the White House continue to betray us all? At the very least, he has destroyed the credibility of the

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1
      (and where is the evidence for that? Where is the Iraqi uranium? Where are the WMD? Nowhere.)

      The British and French Intelligence reports (which they stand by) say that Iraq was shopping for yellow cake. I don't know of anyone who claimed they got it. This whole thing started when the State of the Union address said, ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

      Here's what the Financial Times of London wrote:

      "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

      He can leak info if he wants, either for political gain or for his perceived duty to protect the "truth" as he sees it. But he's taking the risk that, if caught, he'll suffer the consequences. As he is now.

      Granted. If they find he's done something illegal he'll get his due.

      We also don't have anything like "good reason" to know anything about what Rove did or knew, except what he has admitted

      Well, it's normal to assume that things are done typically unless there's evidence to the contrary. We don't assume Rove eats ten pounds of shrimp for breakfast - that would be weird. To the point to which you are responding, we don't assume Rove was briefed on the status of NCO CIA operatives - that would be weird. The President rarely knows who they are. It's theoretically possible, but the grand jury reportedly has dismissed that possibility already.

      mainly because Wilson's debunking the story has been upheld

      I think that's where you're confused. The (bipartisan) Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the matter establishes that Wilson gave an oral report to the CIA which was considered 'mildly-supportive' of the case for Iraq shopping for yellow cake. Which is not what he wrote in the NYT Op-Ed that started this matter. They also establish that his wife got him the job. Which isn't a problem, except Wilson said in his book, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter, she definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

      Here's what the Washington Post wrote about the Committee's report:

      "Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

      The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address....

      The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said....

      The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

      Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Post, the Times, The WSJ, the FT? They're not the arbiters of national security, as you yourself point out. The law makes explicit exception for journalists who reveal secret agents' identities. Because they are not the point at which it is leaked, and their publishing freedom is exceptional. The people who told the NYT about Aero Contractors, who had the security clearance, and anyone else in the chain who don't publish as their work, they're traitors. The journalists are traitors, too, though they're protected due to the necessity of their work in publishing, which is as important to our security as are intelligence agencies.

      Of course, that's a general principle. I am not familiar with the Aero Contractors story. And since you're asserting that Wilson's Niger/Iraq uranium debunking was false, I'm suspicious of your research. Because there was no Niger/Iraq uranium. The document Wilson was sent to investigate was a fraud, easily debunked due to several impossible details, like nonexistent signers. The fake document has been traced to an Italian origin, distributed to the British, then to the US. It was never accepted as proof by US intelligence: those "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union were attempted to be inserted in an earlier, less important speech, but the CIA stopped it. Because they said the evidence wasn't solid enough. But Bush insisted on saying it in the State of the Union, which should have required even stronger evidence, absolutely reliable evidence (or as close as they get in intel) before making statements to Congress and America provoking a war on that basis. That "British intelligence says" qualifier is BS: if Bush says in the 2006 State of the Union "Californians say that Martians are controlling our minds through the TV waves, so we are issuing tinfoil hats, and launching the nukes", we'll strap him into a straitjacket, though 15M Americans will certainly wrap their heads in tinfoil. That memo was used to send us to war, though the White House knew that it couldn't be relied upon: but they did rely on it, because its expediency was too convenient to pass up. They wanted war, they had props, so they used them, and got war.

      Wilson debunked the memo in the NYT, and the memo was a fake. Rove at least confirmed that a person was a CIA/WMD agent, to attack her, and her husband, an ex-ambassador working in the service of the country. Rove is not allowed to attack ambassadors, to attack agents. Even if Rove's telling the truth about his lack of detailed knowledge of her job, beyond her employment as CIA/WMD, that means he couldn't know how much damage he'd be doing. That's extremely reckless, and underscores why he's not allowed to leak CIA identities.

      Really, this is all insane. How can you defend Rove's leak? Of course it's only because you know that Bush can't operate without him. If we were talking about James Carville and Bill Clinton, you'd be among the millions of people demanding Carville hang. Of course, the parallel isn't exactly appropriate, because Clinton could operate without Carville. Don't you think that makes Rove's position even more a threat to our security? Bush has at least two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, going on right now. They're both going badly, especially if measured against their plans of 2002-3. Aren't you standing behind Rove, because you're afraid that Bush won't be able to fight his wars without Rove to think for him?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    17. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And since you're asserting that Wilson's Niger/Iraq uranium debunking was false, I'm suspicious of your research.

      It's not my research, it's the research of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But don't take my word for it - go look it up for yourself. If you want to doubt the veracity of the Senate Intelligence Committee, we'll have to agree to disagree.

      The document Wilson was sent to investigate was a fraud, easily debunked due to several impossible details, like nonexistent signers.

      You're just parroting Wilson's line on this. You can't use him as a source if you're trying to figure out if he's telling the truth. The Intelligence Committee said this document wasn't in the hands of US Intelligence until 9 months after Wilson went to Niger.

      How can you defend Rove's leak?

      It was legal and it helped moved the ball forward. Same way as I defend Mark Felt's leak to Bob Woodward. This is how it works in Washington. The media functions as a fourth branch of government. That's why we have 'on the record' and 'off the record' and 'as background'. It's an imperfect system but it works most of the time.

      I encourage you to watch today's Meet The Press. It'll be in re-runs on MSNBC if you missed it this morning. Tim Russert talks about the Intelligence Committee report and Woodward and Bernstein are interviewed. They talk about the Underground Railroad of Information in Washington and how important that is to the political process. They are afraid Fitzpatrick's prosecution might cut off the flow of information to the media in Washington. This can only serve to harm the Nation.

      Of course it's only because you know that Bush can't operate without him.

      I see, so does that make me a Republican operative or a Moore/Slater fan?

      If we were talking about James Carville and Bill Clinton, you'd be among the millions of people demanding Carville hang.

      James Carville is a riot. I still crack up thinking about him smashing that egg on his head. He was a good political advisor, though I'm not sure if he advised Clinton to lie to the Grand Jury or not. I'm sure he leaked plenty to reporters during his tenure, and that's how things work. I do wonder if he was involved in the Johnny Chung fundraising efforts from the Chinese military and the subsequent transfer of nuclear missile technology but I don't suspect we'll know before the 50-year moratorium.

      Aren't you standing behind Rove, because you're afraid that Bush won't be able to fight his wars without Rove to think for him?

      Your conspiracy theory is out of alignment - Bush's puppetmaster on the War is more likely to be Dick Cheney, not Karl Rove. Rove is the political guy, not the hawkish policy guy. If Karl Rove gets fired Bush's political polish will tarnish, not the War effort.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I watched Meet the Press this morning, with Woodward & Bernstein opposite Russert. When Woodward said, at the end of the show, that putting Miller in jail for refusing to cooperate with the Grand Jury was an attack on the press, I didn't buy it. I wish Russert had gone into that dimension of this story. Because Miller is not just a journalist with some knowledge - she is being questioned as an element of the crime they are investigating. But Russert didn't get into that, because he is shaping the story, rather than following it.

      Miller is not in jail for failing to reveal her source, per se. She is in jail for failing to reveal who collaborated with her in the execution of the crime the grand jury is investigating. Woodward, like Miller, Bernstein and Russert, has his own professional stake in this story. His work, especially on the Watergate story 30 years ago, was of course essential to our open society functioning. His work on _Bush at War_ recently was also important, communicating to Americans how the Iraq war was developed by the White House, insights unavailable from proactive WH communications. But Woodward isn't the arbiter of justice. Nor is Russert. We are watching before our eyes how the collusion between journalists and politicians isn't even sustainable within their own system, within their own relationships - especially when we watch the fallout between Rove and his old leak-drain, Novak. Woodward's concern for Miller's freedom to hide her testimony from a grand jury is balanced by the work of the grand jury to investigate a crime in which she is involved. If in fact we are looking at a crime under law, the grand jury will have to demonstrate not only the evidence, but also that they had the right, under law, to compel Miller to testify.

      We are not examining whether Wilson lied in his NYT editorial. You and I can argue that, but it's not the issue we're talking about: leaking CIA identities. That moved a ball down a field: Rove's ball, down the field of battle between him and Wilson. Nixon moved a ball down the 1972 election field with his Watergate breakin. But those aren't our fields, our balls. Those games damage the US: our security, our credibility, our government. Not everything is "fair game", just because it works. In this case, the fake Niger document worked to send us to war, but Rove's outing Plame to discredit Wilson did not. What must work is that serious leaks like these, solely political and reckless with our security, must be stopped. Just because "everyone is doing it", especially under the Bush administration (I haven't heard any Republican cite any Clinton leaks they say were justified, as a predecessor for Rove's), means we have to stop everyone from doing it, or at least as many as we can. The widespread nature of that abuse of our system makes it that much more important to fix it. Whether or not it sets back the people who are leading your party.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    19. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So we'd be better off if Mark Felt hadn't leaked then?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If Woodward were before a grand jury (he wasn't), and Felt's leak were the only way for that jury to investigate a crime (it wasn't), Woodward might have gone to jail for refusing to cooperate. If Woodward were committed to his position of how important his story was to the safety of the country (maybe he was) he'd go to jail to protect his source, and the story. That's patriotism: sacrifice for one's country. Not getting a paycheck, a book deal, and a promotion from a little-known journalist to the best-known journalist.

      But it's a shabby parallel for more reasons than just those. Because Felt leaked illegal activity by the president, and his criminal organization. Which stopped that president's crimes. Rove leaked a CIA agent identity. Which merely silenced some critics of Rove's president. When the president refuses to heed CIA warnings that the intelligence he's using to justify a war is not acceptable, and the CIA gathers more evidence that the intelligence is not acceptable (their job), do you support the president's aides attacking them by attacking the ability of the CIA to do its job?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Someone else has done the work debunking that Senate report on Wilson's debunking the Niger uranium memo. Though what's the point? The memo was fake, there was no uranium sale to Iraq. There were no WMD.

      There is a war in Iraq. To "defend the security of the United States", though that security was not at stake. It is now, as Rove works with his team to attack the US intelligence apparatus that he views alternately as a prop or an impediment, in his abuse of his desk in the White House. Why don't you care about that? It's your security that's getting flushed down the toilet.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The point is Wilson has repeatedly lied about his activities and had Rove not set the wheels in motion there's no reason to think that information would have come out, and the government would be making decisions based on bad data.

      The link you cite just sets up a strawman and beats it down. It doesn't address the issues of his lying about the memo, his mischaracterization of his report to the CIA, his lies to the Post, and his lies about who got him the job. That Plame didn't have hiring authority doesn't matter - he said in his book she had nothing to do with him getting the gig, when clearly she did. You can't trust Joe Wilson, and people need to read what he says through that lens. If Rove (or whoever else was the real first) leak hadn't acted, the Government would be making policy based on false information. I can't see how that can be anything but catastrophic.

      I wonder if you'll support the same punishment for John Kerry as you do for Karl Rove, at least for the sake of being consistent and nonpartisan. (sorry for the obscure link - I couldn't find free access on the AP site and the Washington Post redacted the NCO's name making the article confusing to read)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Sure it addresses the central facts: Wilson didn't lie about the memo, or who sent him. It shows how the Senate report made statements of fact regarding those items, although it declared that the evidence on which those "facts" were based were no basis for fact.

      As for Kerry & Lugar's revealing a CIA identity in their Bolton questions: if I see something more convincing than that story, like a grand jury investigation and verbatim quotes of the exchange, then yes, of course. Anyone who reveals such a secret must be accountable. There might be some kind of exception, in protecting national security, I suppose, but I'd need to hear that from a court. Why don't you write the FBI about that leak? Is it because you want to see Rove protected? Or maybe Lugar? It sure ain't to protect Kerry - or the agents in question. Or us, by extension.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Google Me This, Batman by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Wilson didn't lie about the memo, or who sent him.

      We're going to have to agree to disagree then.

      He claimed to have gone to Niger about some memos that the US didn't have until 9 months after he went. When the US got those memos isn't in question. That's what the CIA says. If that's not a lie I don't know what you mean by 'lie'.

      He claimed his wife had nothing to do with his getting the job when she was the one who recommended him. That he said it (go to your bookstore to confirm) or that she did so is not a questionable fact. If what he did isn't lying, again, I don't know what you mean by 'lying.'

      These are the plain facts, and I can't debate with you if we can't agree on the basic meaning of words.

      if I see something more convincing than that story, like a grand jury investigation and verbatim quotes of the exchange

      Well, those were verbatim quotes from the transcript, so I'm not sure what more you want other than to deflect the issue.

      Why don't you write the FBI about that leak?

      I'll assume the FBI is aware of what the AP publishes in papers all over the country even if you're not following it. Remember, I'm not the one claiming this disclosure is the end of Western Civilization - if you really do feel so strongly about it I think you're morally obligated to research the issue and discuss it with your local FBI branch office.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    25. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      That's a crock.

      If you refer to your post, you are correct.

      If Rove is protecting the US national security, his job

      Actually, it isn't his job. For good reason, too.

      Regardless of his political gain, Rove cannot, as a White House employee, even confirm that someone is CIA, especially during the run up to a war over WMD.

      Bullshit. Go read the law, the whole law. Read it again. Do it until you finally understand it. It's quite simple. For that to be illegal certain conditions have to be met. IF those conditions are not met then no law is broken by disclosing someone to be a CIA employee of any kind. Period.

      Hint: one of those conditions is that you had to gain the knowledge from government/classified sources. If reporter a tells you it, you are under no *legal* obligation to maintain it a supposed "secret".

      So you go ahead apologizing for Rove's selfserving attack on a CIA agent.

      I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything. How about you stick to only putting words I your own mouth as opposed to other people's, hmm?

      You go ahead patronizing a guy

      Obviously you don't know what that word means. If I'm patronizing anybody here, it's you. Maybe I am patronizing you by responding to your sad little troll. Lucky for you there isn't a "knee-jerk" moderation tag. ;)

      You go ahead running cover

      Again, more slander instead of thought, logic, and reason. When you have no argument, attack your interlocutor, eh? I'm not running for cover for anything. I'm not exactly hiding behind a slashdot id, either. Oh, but you do.

      Go ahead, because you're a traitor too.

      And again with the ad hominems (that means "personal attack"). Fine, here, in language you apparently need to understand:
      Go ahead and run to made up laws so you can attack someone when you don't know the details, only know what other people tell you on TV or radio or read in someone's blog. Go ahead, parrot what his opponents and detractors say, instead of researching and thinking for yourself. Go ahead, because you're a moron too.

      Get that?

      By the way, in your zeal to fry someone on incomplete and inaccurate information, you are causing a bigger problem. Novak's story and Rove's story are in agreement. That means that a different senior administration official actually is responsible for getting the information to Novak. Therefore by focussing (apparently incorrectly) on Rove, you increase the likelyhood the real "perp" remains secret.

      Ask yourself this. Given this information, why are the Democrats so adamant about frying Rove instead of going after the one who gave the information to Novak in the first place? Why are the focussing on someone whe merely agreed with what he heard and ignoring the person who "leaked" the data in the first place?

      IF there was a crime committed by this information being released, the the crime lies in who originally did it. All evidence so far points to it not being Rove.

      Like him or not, hate him or not, he should not be fried for a crime he did not commit while the actual perp gets off scott free. Or are you one of those fascists that believe in examples being made even if the real perp gets off the hook?

      What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Oh, that doesn't go for people you don't like, eh?

      Traitor to the founding principle of our justice system. ;) Obviously, I find your "traitor" remark funny and sad. I highly doubt you've ever put your life on the line for this country. I highly doubt you've ever conducted intelligence operations for this country. I have, and I'd do it again.

      So go ahead, play keyboard cowboy. Keep pretending to live the life some of us have lived. Just don't be suprised when we don't take you seriously.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    26. Re:Google Me This, Batman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Karl Rove has Top Secret security clearance, and directly advises the president. That means part of his job is protecting national security. The fact that he runs his job almost entirely to elect and protect Republican politicians, rather than prioritizing all Americans' interests, is already a scam. Which you, a Republican, of course support 100%, even when it means apologizing for treason.

      Now, you go stick that law up your ass. Or the various other laws which he probably broke, like obstructing justice, lying to the grand jury, all those other crimes which the notoriously slippery Rove might get away with, if he avoided the exact letter of each law. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't a court, our decisions aren't verdicts. We're Americans, and Rove's attack of Plame and Wilson by releasing/confirming her CIA/WMD identity jeopardized national security, solely for Rove's political agenda. And you are backing that up. Are you running for Congress under Rove's strategy next year or something? How else do you excuse this sleazy trick, at the expens of American security, other than your worship of Bush, and the brain that keeps him in power?

      Look, you can cite some claim to "putting your life on the line" for the country, for "conducting intelligence operations". I expect Rove thinks he's attacking Democrats and pushing the Iraq war "for the good of the country", too. I expect the rest of the Iran-Contra NSA/CIA people back in their old covert jobs have similar rationalizations. But the fact is that Rove outed a CIA/WMD agent for political gain, which puts the national security at risk. If you really have been a US intelligence worker, your glib apologies for that kind of damage is shameful. But then, shame is a liability that every one of the people on Bush's team, especially those faking intelligence to go to war, either in Iraq or Nicaragua, making side deals with either Ghorbanifar or Chalabi, have already abandoned. Don't exect the rest of us who are still human to have any respect for you, or your evil masterminds, when you go down in flames like Eugene Hasenfus.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  47. Re:Next Stop: Mandatroy Information Pollution by jafac · · Score: 1

    In this case, the government might seek to inject as much contradictory information as it can.

    Which happens every time a White House Administration official appears on FoxNews.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  48. This is not new information by AntoniusBloc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that the point needs to be made that this is not new information. That is, Lazarus' search was done using publically available real estate information. This has always been public information (in the U.S.). The difference now is that instead of having to call various county clerks/assessors, etc. he was able to do it from his computer. The internet does make it a lot easier though.

  49. On Ignoring Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rove didn't do anything illegal he received the information from a media source.

    Funny you failed to mention John Kerry revealed a undercover CIA's name during Bolton's UN appointment hearings and absoultely nothing happened to him.

    1. Re:On Ignoring Information by NoTheory · · Score: 1

      Rove didn't do anything illegal he received the information from a media source.

      Does passing classified information that he received (however he got it) on to Matt Cooper somehow not count as illegal?

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
  50. Re:Um... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > > [Author David Lazarus] could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares.
    >
    > ...just what are we talking about here?

    There are people could tell you, but they already know their own residences' ingress and egress routes, and they think these routes are just fine the way they are. If you asked her on her TV show, someone like Martha Stewart would probably say something to the effect that, regardless of how easy the ingress route may be to use, and regardless of the fact that all relocation and refurnishing expenses are covered by the taxpayers, residences with egress routes involving 90 miles of salt water are not a good thing.

    Hey, who the hell are you? WTF? No, I don't mean to imply that Marth*thumpthumpthump*Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

  51. Stating the obvious by sheldon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So Karl Rove told Cooper(and probably Novak) that she was CIA.

    Someone looking up Valerie Wilson(aka Plame) to find out where she worked, would find her working at 'Brewster Jennings & Associates'. But being the intelligent sort, they would go "Hmm, didn't Novak say she was CIA?" and by logical extension they'd arrive at the conclusion that 'Brewster Jennings & Associates' was a CIA front, or at the very least it had been infiltrated by CIA.

    The point being... the problem wasn't leaking Wilson's wifes name. The problem was linking her to the CIA.

    1. Re:Stating the obvious by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to the NYT today, you have it backwards. Novak told Rove... That's makes it quite a question how Novak knew right?

      It also explains why Rove is not the target of the investigation...

    2. Re:Stating the obvious by sg3000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 'Brewster Jennings & Associates' was a CIA front, or at the very
      > least it had been infiltrated by CIA.

      Yeah, or for the slower witted spies, you could just wait for Novak to publish his second article where he identified Brewer Jennings & Associates as a CIA front company:

      > In making her April 22, 1999 [to Gore], contribution, Valerie E.
      > Wilson identified herself as an "analyst" with "Brewster-
      > Jennings & Associates." No such firm is listed anywhere, but
      > the late Brewster Jennings was president of Socony-Vacuum
      > oil company a half-century ago. Any CIA employee working
      > under "non-official cover" always is listed with a real firm, but
      > never an imaginary one.

      This was at the beginning of Novak attempting to dismiss Wilson's conclusions about his trip because he was "partisan" (even ignoring the fact that Wilson gave money to Bush and Gore, and he served under both parties' presidents). It's considered to be a logical fallacy, but it hasn't stopped Republicans from trying it in the past two years of this WMD debacle. The fact that they exposed information about the CIA for political gain is unconscionable.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    3. Re:Stating the obvious by sheldon · · Score: 1

      And by golly, there it is on opensecrets.org.

      Wilson, Valeries E MS - Washington DC- Employed by Brewster Jennings & Assoc. $1000 to the Al Gore campaign

    4. Re:Stating the obvious by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter. Rove shouldn't have been spreading gossip like this as an employee of the Whitehouse.

      If Novak did tell him his response should have been "Such inquiries are out of bounds. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's not a subject you ought to be broaching on this story."

      That he did not, and instead started passing the gossip off to others, is quite an indictment of the lack of patriotism Karl Rove has.

    5. Re:Stating the obvious by tenchiken · · Score: 2, Funny

      You attack his patriotism? I though that kind of mindless heat filled rhetoric was limited to the right. Evidentally not.

      Part of the reason this story has legs is that Palme authorized (on her own) her husband to take a all expenses trip to Niger. Her husband lied later and said that Cheney sent him (and later backed up and said Scooter) and then backtracked off of that. At the very least that violates several nepotism clauses.

    6. Re:Stating the obvious by protohiro1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An all expenses trip to the lovely resort nation of Niger!! Man, that is so great! How can I get that job? I wish I had a wife and the agency that could get me a free trip to "one of the poorest countries in the world, a landlocked Sub-Saharan nation, whose economy centers on subsistence crops, livestock, and some of the world's largest uranium deposits" Almost as nice as free trip to play golf at St Andrews or the beaches of Tahiti.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    7. Re:Stating the obvious by Thanatopsis · · Score: 5, Informative

      He never said Cheney sent him. That's simply a lie. What he said was that the office of the vice president requested the CIA look into this Niger matter. The CIA chose Joe Wilson as he already done this sort of work before (Valerie did not send him to Niger on here own. That's just silly.) He was an ambassador to Niger and Gabon and knew all the players in the area and had completed covert work for the CIA before.
      Here's the quote
      "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
      Media repeated false GOP talking point on authorization for Wilson trip to Niger

    8. Re:Stating the obvious by SupraTT+GOP · · Score: 1

      As for heat-filled rhetoric from the left.... aren't you aware of the left's new developing Internet epicenter???: ;-)
      http://www.dailykos.com/
      http://www.democraticunderground.com/

      Actually, it seems to me that Wilson implied that the VP or someone with close ties to the Whitehouse sent him. He used muddled and ambiguous language in some interviews and in his NYT Op-Ed to accomplish this. So yes, several officials (Cheney, Tenet, Rice) felt it was necessary to set the record straight as to whether or not they had any knowledge of or role in Wilson and his trip beforehand. Also several journalists and interviewers made the same interpretation of Wilson's account of events, and subsequently gave him multiple opportunities to set the record or straight.... which he did ...with some more ambiguous language.

      Interestingly, this is only one of many, many fascinating bits of this story. It's an awesome story, in my opinion, because I get to witness the way the media and the left in exuberant zeal have been getting ahead of themselves in this story, and their pursuits. The crow is beginning to be served. (not that anyone but the real newshounds will be around to witness the media and the extreme left eating- not that they are humble or honest enough to eat- haha.)

    9. Re:Stating the obvious by tenchiken · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's what he said in the NYT interview. I am refering to his apperence on Meet the Press and Hardball.

    10. Re:Stating the obvious by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      She didn't 'authorize' a damn thing, and wasn't in position to authorize anything.

      She might, or might not, have suggested her husband, but everyone knew Joe Wilson and knew of his record in Niger. He had a ton of contacts that and had worked there repeatedly.

      So they approached him and he offered to make a pro bono eight-day visit to what is, according to the CIA, 'one of the poorest countries in the world with minimal government services', Niger, which he spent visiting contacts and doing his job.

      However, don't take my word for it. Demand Joe Wilson pay for his lovely eight-day vaction to Niger. So if the GDP per capita is $900, divide that by 365, we get roughly...three dollars a day manufactured per person.

      Let's assume he ate and slept in the best places, costing up to, oh, twenty dollars a day! (The equivalent of 2000 dollars a day here.)

      So if eight days costs, oh, about 200 dollars, plus 150 dollars airfair, so 350 dollars for that vacation. Or it would be if anyone ever wanted to go to Niger.

      Of course, you'd then have to pay him for his job. How much is eight days of diplomatic research worth?

      Jesus. When did Niger become the Switzerland of Africa, with people jaunting off on vacations to it? They barely have paved roads there.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Stating the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DU and dKos stopped being releveant for anything other then Democratic Party circle jerks a long long time ago.

    12. Re:Stating the obvious by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Then Karl Rove must not have been the source. After all Karl Rove said:

      Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

    13. Re:Stating the obvious by NoTheory · · Score: 1
      No, He really never said that. He said that aides to the vice president were aware of the trip. And senior CIA officials have stated for the record that Valerie Plame was not responsible for picking Ambassador Wilson for the trip.

      You're propigating lies. Please stop.

      here is a (one of many) relevant quote:
      WILSON: It's not so much that I've denied it. It was the CIA itself that denied it a week after the Novak article came out, well before I was ever in a position to acknowledge that my wife worked for the CIA. And indeed, regrettably, the staff at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did not call the CIA to find out their official position. But a year before, "Newsday" reporters Knut Royce and Tim Phelps did, and this is what the CIA told them: "A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked alongside the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They" -- the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story -- "were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising. There are people elsewhere in the government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up for some reason. I can't figure out who it would be."
      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    14. Re:Stating the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wilson originally donated $2000 to the Gore campaign, but like any good CIA agent who plays both sides, he also gave $1000 to the Bush primary campaign.
      Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm (washingtonpost.com)

      "Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000, was "reattributed" so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore. Wilson also gave $1,000 to the Bush primary campaign, but there is no donation listed from his wife."

    15. Re:Stating the obvious by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You are aware that you are quoting Rove as source to prove that Rove didn't lie.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    16. Re:Stating the obvious by NarrMaster · · Score: 1

      It's not a "vicious circle", it's a "virtuous ring of truth".

      Seriously, expect that kind of spin.

      --
      That's right. All your base.
    17. Re:Stating the obvious by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Well, that gig is up. Now a Donor Search on opensecrets.org turns up 0 results for Brewster Jennings in the employer field.

      Is OpenSecrets keeping secrets?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:Stating the obvious by sukotto · · Score: 1

      It's also "treason in time of war".

      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
  52. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Further on, like many other recent news reports, he has recommendations as to what the best type of weapon (and the best places to untracably purchase same), ammunition, best place to steal a get-away car from, what times the police patrol the neighborhood, etc.

    But, they don't mean to insinuate that someone should actually go after them.

    It's like the recent news reports stating that someone could put botulism in a specific milk distribution point, specifying the minimum amount of botulism they sould use, what the best way to bypass what security they have, etc. Good thing the terrorists don't watch news programs to get detailed plans, isn't it?

  53. Re:Um... by eln · · Score: 1

    if anything, the internet can be a plus for those spys who (and/or their support staffs) understand how to create/maintain a pseudo-personality in cyberspace that doesn't truly reflect reality; people often believe what they see on the internet (goes for TV, etc too) without much thought.

    This is true. For example, in reality I work for the FBI. However, in the AOL chatrooms I frequent, everyone thinks I'm a sexy 13 year old girl whose parents are always leaving her alone and who is curious about sex and wants an older man to teach her.

  54. Interpretations by gimpboy · · Score: 1

    "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

    One interpretation of this statement is that on the day Bob Novak blew her identity, she was a clandestine officer. His blowing of her identity ment that she was no longer considered clandestine.

    clandestine adj : conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods;


    Once outed, you can no longer be clandestine.

    --
    -- john
  55. Re:Um... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

    Yes...but that was fiction...

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  56. And this article shows... what? by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 1
    I am undecided on whether Karl Rove was the leak of information or not, but I do not see that this article is anything more than use of hindsight determining confirming already revealed conclusions.


    He uses google? Well, I'm sure many amateurs using google and searching on Valerie Plame Wilson would probably raise the relevancy of the findings. "Leaks can snowball" should be pretty obvious. I just fail to see the


    As an aside, whoever leaked this information was both well trusted (to have that level of information) and very willing to sacrifice someone's life. In such a situation, regardless of who it is, I think a conviction of treason (the only capital federal crime) is the only "appropriate" punishment for treating someone else's life so nonchalantly.

  57. Re:Next week's column - MOD PARENT UP UP UP!!! by johansalk · · Score: 1

    Hilarious! Nothing else needs to be said in this thread.

  58. Covert agent? BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pretty clear the person in question was a desk jockey CIA analyst who definitely was not a field agent and definitely not involved in any covert actions.

    This whole thing is a really a non story.

    And yes, there is way too much private information available on the internet.

  59. non-story by Stradivarius · · Score: 1

    All the article demonstrates is that LexisNexis knows womens' maiden names. It demonstrates nothing about outing undercover agents. The only reason the reporter knew to even look for Wilson's wife's name was because "two officials" (allegedly Rove and someone else) leaked the fact that his wife worked for the CIA. That was the source of the privacy/security breach, not Google or LexisNexis.

    And in any case, a maiden name isn't exactly private information - many acquaintances of a person have access to it, as the woman has used the name publicly for many years. (There are organizations foolish enough to use this as a security-screening question, but the insecurity of this practice is not new to the information age).

    Neither is your address private information - addresses have been publically available for free in phone books for decades.

    If anything, the real shocker (besides the leak itself) should be that the CIA had an undercover agent using as cover their maiden name. Assuming that the CIA is not run by imcompetents, I'd say they must not have cared all that much about her cover if that was the only obfuscation they chose.

    1. Re:non-story by tthomas48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No you again are missing the point about CIA operatives. They don't generally go under cover as completely different people with different names, lives, children. It's not like the movies.
      CIA agents generally work in legitimate fields (like owning a business), that gives them access to useful people and information. They can be themselves and learn this information. It just becomes a problem if others learn that they really work for the CIA.

    2. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err. No. What looks more suspicious to your eastern europeans spooks? (A) Valerie Plame gets out of high school, gets job working for company named "Brewster & Jennings" and is assigned by said company to look into possible eastern european holdings, or (B) "Fodie Joster" appears out of the blue, working for the same company, but with suspicious a personal history that can't be verified directly by your spies in the US? E.G. Hey, it says she went to Random College, and the US records show she was there, but our old copies of those records don't list her, and our informant on the campus never heard of her.

      The point of NOC cover is not to hide the person, it's to hide the CIA behind the person.

    3. Re:non-story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Neither is your address private information - addresses have been publically available for free in phone books for decades."

      Forget phone books. Many towns/municipalities have publicly accessible property info. For instance:
      http://tohgis.town.huntington.ny.us/Parcels/

      Search by address, search by owner. Same town also has tax record info per address...
      http://tohgis.town.huntington.ny.us/huntingtontaxr eceiver/search.asp

      With this *and* a phone book, perhaps a little dumpster diving.....

      Man am I glad I'm off the grid.

  60. County GIS Systems by rlp · · Score: 1

    A lot of county GIS systems are available as public information on the Web. Given an address, you can view things such as recent (low altitude) aerial photos (in color), list of residents, purchase price of house, purchase history of house, current assessment, and perhaps even floor plans, and recent building permits. There's a trade-off between the public's "right-to-know" and an individual's privacy. Usually I see articles in newspapers that come out strongly for the public's "right to know'. But I guess it all depends on the current agenda of the article's author.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  61. Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by billstewart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Philip Agee (interview about Plame/Wilson affair) worked for the CIA from 1957-1968, and left because he disagreed with what the CIA was doing - assassinations, overthrowing governments that weren't politically convenient for the US, supporting Latin American , that sort of thing. In 1975, he wrote a book "Inside the Company: CIA Diary" about his experiences there, which the CIA tried to prevent from being published, and sometime around that time he wrote about how to identify CIA agents from publicly available information - things like the kinds of jobs at US embassies or US military bases that were usually CIA agents. (Imagine if Google had been available back then!) Barbara Bush accused Agee of being a traitor, and George H.W. Bush got Congress to pass a law making it illegal to out CIA agents, and the US and its allies revoked his passport, making it harder for him to travel. I heard Agee speak at Berkeley in ?1979? - very interesting character.

    The Don't-Out-CIA-Agents law that was passed to bust future Agees is now being used to possibly bust G.W.Bush's henchmen, probably his handler Karl Rove. The law makes it more illegal if you have access to classified information (which Rove does, but may or may not have used) and use that to reveal the identity of covert agents, but also makes it illegal to out them using publicly available information.

    The White House has been weasel-wording about "Rove didn't tell Cooper Plame's name, just that she was Wilson's wife", but not only does the law talk about identifying people, not just specifically naming them, but somehow Novak, Cooper, and probably Judith Miller all found out she was an agent, so it wasn't just a "casual remark" intended to "correct mistaken impressions" - it was a well-organized campaign, and Novak apparently talked to two different Administration sources. Not only is Rove guilty, but he's trying to cover it up.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That sounds great until you look at the facts. Novak told Rove about Plame, not the other way around. Rove was also informed of her status by another member of the media. There's speculation Miller may have been the original source. But how could she have leaked it? Simple, she couldn't. Multiple sources have already stated Plame's status as a CIA analyst was widely known in political/media circles.

      Fred Rustmann (a former CIA agent and teacher of plame) has been saying for awhile now that her status was well known publically. You can't go to work everyday in Langley while being married to a high profile state department employee and honestly claim to be undercover.

      All of this also ignores the fact that if Joe Wilson had not lied in his NYT op-ed we wouldn't be here.

    2. Re:Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by Jerry · · Score: 1

      I remember that fuss. It seems that the Democrats defended Agee's actions as "free speech". Now it's different? What happen to free speech?

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    3. Re:Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest lie in question is Bush's lie that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium ore in Africa. If Bush hadn't lied, we wouldn't be here. If Wilson had gone along with Bush's lie, he'd probably still be taking nepotistic junkets to produce reports backing up more Bush lies.

      The fact is, Rove and Bush only wanted to expose the Plame-Wilson nepotism to discredit his exposure of their lies. Nepotism and defrauding the taxpayer is ok with them if you toe the party line.

    4. Re:Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if Joe Wilson had not lied in his NYT op-ed we wouldn't be here.

      the fallacy of that statement notwithstanding, that's about as intelligent as saying "if she wasn't such a bitch, i wouldn't have had to kill her!" good on your talking points, robot.

    5. Re:Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by Lars+T. · · Score: 0

      I guess they see a difference between saying "this person is a CIA agent" and "people with these jobs are usually CIA agents (and most foreign intelligence agencies fucking know it)".

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    6. Re:Philip Agee and Identifying CIA agents by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec: Rove says: Novak told Rove about Plame, not the other way around.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  62. Googling For DemocRATic Traitors: +1, Heroic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To: All 'Merican Patriots
    From: President-Vice Cheney

    ATTENTION TRUE PATRIOTS: Once again, the hateful Democratic attack machine has shifted into high gear, intent on abusing facts and iron-clad evidence to turn Americans against beloved Presidential pal and über-patriot, Karl Rove. You can do your part to soften the trauma of this travesty by sending Karl a personalized e-mail of support and understanding. Simply click the link below to tell Karl how you're positive that he's INNOCENT - and even if he had, say, determined that compromising our nation's security by outing some globe-trotting bitch in a power suit whose farts stink like foie gras and martinis just to even a petty score, well then good on him, buster!

    CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL KARL ROVE NOW!
    -----Original Message-----
    From: [YOU]
    Sent: [NOW]
    To: Karl C. Rove [karl_c._rove@who.eop.gov]
    Subject: AMERICA LOVES YOU KARL!

    Dear Karl Rove:

    I just wanted to tell you that no matter how much indisputable evidence those fact-obsessed intellectual reporters release about you betraying America, I join the President in not caring diddly-squat about so-called national security when the only war that matters is the one we're waging against Democrats. So that makes you TOPS in my book! Anyway, however it happened, that bimbo Valerie Plame got what she deserved for marrying a moron who spouted crazy talk about Saddam bin Laden not having all those Nukepox Laser Deathrays you made President Bush promise we'd find. Heck, she should be happy that you only assassinated his CHARACTER!

    Well, I would say don't let this 'Plame Game' get you down, but I'm sure you're already orchestrating your greatest-yet Machiavellian stratagem (replete with Clintonesque legalistic parsings) to slither out of doing any prison time - especially since you were polite enough not to use Mrs. Wilson's first name. So good luck with the indictments and likely cover-up conspiracy investigation, and next time you're whispering him sweet nothings, please tell Bob Novak I think his waxy tufts of silver ear hair are massively SEXY - in a totally non-homosexual way, of course!

    Sincerely,

    Your name here

  63. With great power... by cyngus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...comes great responsibility. Seriously, as more information becomes more readily available you're going to need to be able to trust everyone else more. What's the reason that most crime isn't committed? Because its too hard due to a lack of information. In other words, most of today's security is still obtained through obscurity. The burglar doesn't break into your house cause he doesn't have the blueprints to plan escape routes. The more you know the easier it is to plan an attack. A similar increase in information does not produce the same attack resistance, since an attacker must only choose one vector, while you have to protect against all of many possible vectors of attack. More information exposes more attack vectors and effectively weakens your defenses. You better start loving your neighbor, cause its only going to get easier for him to attack.

  64. Re:Is this blamming Google? by RamboIII · · Score: 0
    Sorry, this was thought of as "OFFTOPIC". I just don't get the article. If this guy knew who the other guy was, and wanted to find out where that guy's wife lived uh, couldn't he have just followed him home one day? Hence the relivancy of what tool was used.

    It's like saying, "I went to my neighbor's house in my 1994 Dodge Ram 1/2 ton pickup, with chrome side-steps, and dual exaust."

    And even that he used these tools in the manner that he did, I STILL don't get the whole "use" for this. This is slashdot, "New for nerds. Stuff that matters". I don't think I'm the only nerd here that thinks that this guy is just blowing his own horn and trying to put the whole "Internet Information Ability" in a bad light. It would be like me going on and on for 3 hours looking for child porn, and saying, "OOH OOH look what you can do with the internet in just a little time".

    --
    Time is comparison of movement to other movement.
  65. Waitaminit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a phonebook and payphone isn't good enough anymore?

    Next you're going to tell me that this "mass transit" thing makes it unnecessary to kill bikers for their clothes and wheels...

    - T-101

  66. A better tool than Google for finding spooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Is Public Information Research's Namebase. They hate Google too: Google Watch

  67. Better example: The sad story of David Kelly by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    According to this story from The Guardian, David Kelly was actually exposed by correlating data using Google.
    Norton-Taylor said, "I went to the internet and searched through Google and I pressed a couple of words in. I typed in the search engine something like 'Britain' plus 'Unscom' plus maybe one other word. About the first or second item on that list that came up on Google was a lecture David Kelly had given, I think in America, and it said that he was a former British Unscom inspector."
    After that, Norton-Taylor still needed confirmation, but the UK government had promised to act as an oracle.

    The second part is the more important one. Finding information is easy, most of the time. Deciding what's relevant is the key issue.
  68. 2600 by fishwack · · Score: 1

    Its funny because this CIA operative in question was already publicly identified at a hacker conference by an uperanking official of the CIA. If you listen to this weeks broadcast of off the hook they have documented audio proof it. You can dl the broadcast at http://www.2600.com./ Might possibly have been last weeks broadcast, my memory fails me.

    1. Re:2600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I listened to the broadcast.

      The conversation at the hacker conference WAS NOT a pre-Novak leak of Valeria Plame's name and job. It was a discussion that occurred a only a year ago, and the discussion was about the leak and the investigation of it, after both were already news items. The ex-CIA employee is also not identified as "uperanking" (your spelling sucks as baddly as your memory).

      The hacker con discussion merely speculated that someone named what sounds like "Scooter Libby" who works in Dick Cheney's office did it on Karl Rove's pre-knowledge and Cheney approved after the fact. Emmanual and Bernie seemed to think that this speculation at the hacker con was some kind of scoop, and were using the fact to promote their conferences.

  69. Privacy was a right, once upon a time by John+Seminal · · Score: 2
    Which is more scary, that privacy in general is a hard to obtain or that the Internet makes it readily available to anyone with too much time on their hands.

    The courts and republican administrations have done everything they can to take away all privacy. Check out the promises the republican national committie and the City of Boston made during the conventions. Boston installed thousands of cameras throught the city, to provide added security for the republican convention. Boston promised to take them down as soon as the convention was over. Guess what? Those cameras are still up, the city said it cost so much to put them in place, they might as well keep them. Chicago followed next, adding 3,000 cameras.

    But the internet is worse. Anyone can put any information on the internet, and it is hard to find the source.

    I'll give one example from my local newspaper. Someone at the local high school snapped some pictures of a girl he disliked, her naked and I don't know what else, and he put that on the internet. Then he emailed his classmates telling them what website to look at. The girl was humiliated. Could you go back to highschool if everyone saw you naked? How can you concentrate in math class when you feel like everyone is staring right through your clothing. And the jokes, they can be very cruel. Who is going to pay for her counceling, for her pain and suffering?

    What is the solution?

    We need to remember that privacy is important. Where I live is my buisness, it should not be in a database for anyone to look up.

    I will give one example. Say there is Joweski and Co Construction. They build million dollar mansions, and the owner, Mr. Joweski is very rich. Should I be able to google him up, find out all his buisness, where he goes, his home address, and find a way to ambush him, to steal his money, to steal his identity. Or should be be relativly anonymous to 99% of the people. If he steals or srews someone over, the police have the drivers license data, his taxes, they can track him down. But what once was private is now everywhere on the web.

    We need a law that says anything which personally identifies a person must be removed from a website unless that person gives continuing concent to keep it up (like agreeing again every 6 months).

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Privacy was a right, once upon a time by VivianC · · Score: 1

      Check out the promises the republican national committie and the City of Boston made during the conventions. Boston installed thousands of cameras throught the city, to provide added security for the republican convention. Boston promised to take them down as soon as the convention was over.

      Call me crazy, but New York hosted the Republican National Convention. Boston hosted the Democrats. Here is your clue: John Kerry is Senator of what state?

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    2. Re:Privacy was a right, once upon a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On cameras: have you noticed how much play the CCTV footage of London bombing suspects has been given? How much do you want to bet that CCTV will be hailed as fulfilling its promise and that proponents will use this incident to justify much more widespread installations?

      -Rick

    3. Re:Privacy was a right, once upon a time by mikael · · Score: 1

      In Europe at least, it is illegal to take a photograph of a person and publish it without their permission. And if it were a photograph of someone under 16, that would probably count as pornography as well.

      Surely similar laws apply in the USA?

      In that case, you would be able to sue both the web site owner and ISP.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Privacy was a right, once upon a time by polyiguana · · Score: 1

      I'll give one example from my local newspaper. Someone at the local high school snapped some pictures of a girl he disliked, her naked and I don't know what else, and he put that on the internet.

      OK, then where did that naked picture come from in the first place? And just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean that everybody in the world saw it. This is no different than if somebody just passed along photocopies of compromising information and handed them out to people.

  70. It's DejaNews all over again by davidwr · · Score: 1

    DejaNews http://dejanews.com/">December 1996

    DejaNews today

    DejaNews started in 1995 and aimed to carry every mainline newsgroup from May 1995 on, plus as many older articles as it could get.

    here is an article dated Fri May 15 18:01:16 1981. If the link goes stale, just use Google's advanced search to search by date.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  71. And every one an Agent? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    I can see the day where we all change our last name to "Smith" or something of that nature.

    I seem to recall seeing a movie about that.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  72. he means: 30 minutes w/ prior knowledge... by viva_fourier · · Score: 2

    It's interesting that he was able to dig up the name/maiden name/address of the wife of a former ambassador/editorialist, but he was not able to dig up any connection of hers to the CIA or any other information that would even be *close* to newsworthy. Yet, the article's views-to-news is that he was able to do this in ~30min. But, this is having apriori knowledge that she was working for the CIA.

    Had the reporter started from scratch, his methodology would have been:
    1. Pick a random friend/enemy.
    2. LexisNexis for as much info as possible.
    3. Google Map it.
    4. Drive up to the home address and ask: "Are you a CIA agent?"
    5. Repeat 1-4 until the answer is yes.
    6. Profit!

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
  73. He's dead, Jim! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    Hahahahaha! Sanford was one of my customers at an ISP I worked at. He hosed our machines feeding filth, and we cut him off. As I did every day at 3:00, I put on Black Sabbath, and deleted the abusers and non-payers. I remember that day...

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  74. And even beyond that... by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

    You're right, but that doesn't go far enough. Now, anyone associated with the front organization will be suspected of involvement with the CIA, correctly or not.

  75. First link got eaten by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Here's what I typed, it should've worked. I should've previewed :(.

    DejaNews <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19961219174859/ht tp://dejanews.com/">December 1996</a>

    Note the extra space between ht and tp was NOT there when I typed it! I assume /. put it there to keep /. links from being used for nefarious purposes.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  76. Karl Rove's Address: by deliciousmonster · · Score: 0, Insightful
    --
    I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
  77. Because everyone knew by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    At that point she hadn't really been undercover anymore for quite a while, and most of her neighbors knew she was with the CIA as well as a number of journalists. So not only Novak knew.

    I think we are coming close to seeing a classic recursive stack overflow in the reporting of this matter, when there is finally a loop of people telling each other she was with the CIA.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Because everyone knew by Thanatopsis · · Score: 1

      Really most of her neighbors knew? How do you know? Because you are repeating a talking point? I have seen article where her "neighbors" say CIA? I thought she worked in energy. How could she work in the CIA with those twins? That last one was pretty funny to me.

  78. The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    IANAL:

    However, the media has stated time and time again that the law applies to outing a covert agent within 5 years of the agent being overseas. Valerie Plame stopped field work when she came back to the US on her last rotation, she then got married to Wilson and had twins. She worked at the Langley office as an analyst for the past six years. So I doubt anyone broke the law here. She is not technically an active NOC.

    Even then, who is the NYTimes reporter protecting? I mean she's the one sitting in a prison (albeit a nice modern one with common areas and plexi glass doors instead of bars) refusing to testify to the grand jury. She sure as heck is NOT protecting Rove of all people! Also, what about Robert Novack? He's the one who first published Plame's name! Why hasn't he been questioned by the grand jury yet?

    1. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is somewhat off-topic, but Judith Miller is the same reporter that the New York Times had to apologize for because she was single-sourcing stories from the administration (and Chalabi, which kind of amounted to the same thing in that time period).

      So, yeah, given that there's a history of her being a mouthpiece for the administration, she could very well be protecting Rove.

  79. Not only that by mkro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Photos of Valerie Plame has not exactly been floating around (Except that "mysterious" Vanity Fair photo), but a few weeks ago when using Google image search, I found this page. Scroll a bit down, and Valerie and Joseph is posing for the camera. Not only that, the web page author is scaling the picture with the img tag. Enter the image url directly, and voila -- 2048x1536 goodness. If not a fake, it must be the most detailed picture that can be found of her on the internet.

    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
    1. Re:Not only that by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      hmm... not bad for her age... I'd hit that.... :)

      j/k...

    2. Re:Not only that by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Holy waste of bandwidth, Batman! If you didn't know where this was already you could probably cross-reference the serial number on the UPS truck outside the window.

      Ambassadors sure can buy diamond earrings with great light return properties!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  80. Re:he means: 30 minutes w/ prior knowledge... by obiquity · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the point is that Rove supplied the CIA link, which enabled the subsequent "outing" of a CIA agent. It is unlikely that he didn't know what he was doing when he disclosed the career information considering Rove's long history of leekage (See the documentary 'Bush's Brain')

  81. What an irresponsible stupid article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be an epidemic of these Ned Flanders types who have appeared lately. The guy who wrote the article is obviously one of them.

    Privacy laws ? What is he talking about.

    People just have to accept that once you blurt info about yourself or your life on to the internet or really give up personal details to any organization no matter who they are, you can no longer realistically expect that informaion to be private.

    I'm sorry it's a tough thing for people to accept, but that is what freedom of information is all about. Sure it sucks if it's your credit card number or something but really you have to ask yourself how did it get out there in the first place ?

    Most people have an address of some kind. If you can get it out of Google or some other repository of info then that's just how it is.

    In a way it's better that some of this info is out there, because the worst thing is secret government lists that no one can access. Information is free. Information is freedom. Information is like springed snake in a can of fake beer nuts. It wants to escape. Let it.

  82. I think if you google for "Bush" by spun · · Score: 1

    You might not get the results you were thinking of. You need to refine your search. Try "President Bush," "hot wet bush" or perhaps "shaved bush" depending on what you were actually trying to find.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:I think if you google for "Bush" by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      What about "holly bush"?

  83. Google plus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google gets most of the data, Zabasearch can also help.

  84. Zaba by doormat · · Score: 1

    http://www.zabasearch.com/

    The easiest way to find out about someone. Just type in a name...

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  85. Talking Points by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    You have zero creditability talking about "Talking Points" while linking to a site that is named "Talking Points" to refute it. Thanks for playing though!

    No, you have zero credibility when you cluelessly dismiss a site by its title. The "Talking Points" in "Talking Points Memo" is specifically referring to Republican talking points, and was originally set up to alert people to the latest ones being circulated around. It does a good job, too- pointing out when the same lie or distortion suddenly appears worded exactly the same way from several supposedly independent sources. Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. He didn't say her name, he said "Wilson's wife". Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. Rove is the whistleblower here. Rove deserves a medal. Etc etc etc.

    (BTW, Rove did not know she was undercover. He got the name from Novak: [links to latest talking point deleted])

    The evidence for Rove "not knowing she was undercover" probably boils down to an allegation coming from Rove's attorney, but it doesn't matter anyway. As a matter of law, intelligence professionals cannot confirm information that is classified even if they receive that information from a non-classified source.

  86. Rove did nothing illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) she wasn't undercover
    2) she wasn't hiding her identity
    3) Rove wasn't intending to 'out' her or cause her any harm. (odds are Rove didn't even know that she once had been working undercover)
    4) She wasn't hiding what she did for a living.

    -anon cause this will be modded a troll for pointing out the facts.

    1. Re:Rove did nothing illegal by NoTheory · · Score: 1

      -anon cause this will be modded a troll for pointing out the facts.

      You'd have to actually have facts to point out first :p

      It was not, and was never clear that she was working for the CIA. Her in-laws went so far as to ask whether her husband knew. And it's absurd to think that all spies are some shadowy non-person who hide from any sort of identification. Spies are people who hide what they do, not necessarily all facets of who they are.

      Finally, it doesn't matter whether Rove was intending to do her harm, he did the dumbass thing and running with what he thought was convenient, rather than checking whether he should be spreading around information about CIA agents or not.

      If you'd like to try supporting your claims with say... actual information, perhaps you wouldn't have to post anonymously.

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    2. Re:Rove did nothing illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm posting anon because of people like you, who don't know what the law is, and don't know what the facts are, and have no desire to learn them. You just want to pile on and attack, regardless of what the truth is.

      Unlike the radical leftists that inhabit this board and mark any thing that disagrees with the democratic party line as a troll.

      Funny how Sandy Berger never got posted on /. isn't it?

  87. Traitor in the White house by craXORjack · · Score: 1

    I won't say his name, but he is fat, stupid-looking, evil, and works as George Busch's closest advisor.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    1. Re:Traitor in the White house by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      Dick Cheney?

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    2. Re:Traitor in the White house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scott McLellan?

  88. Hunting the CIA by kwandar · · Score: 1

    We should turn this into a sport - lets see how many secret agents can be outted via the internet. I went to Cryptome and found this article, that indicates that Cheri Leberknight, Eunjoo Ann Kensinger, Dave Robertson, Miguel Fabregas, Valerie Plame, John Spahn, and Rebecca Wolfson can be added to the spook list!

  89. RTFA and you'll find nothing important. by gorehog · · Score: 1

    I tried to read this article and to me it seems like a diversion from the issue.

    The author seems goes to great lengths to find out who Wilson' s wife is, a task he could have accomplished with 2 credit checks. Maybe the author is not very smart or experienced at how to do this sort of research.

    The most important detail, the one he glosses over, is that Karl Rove revealed that a particular person was working for CIA and as a result blew her cover, the cover of the front company, and has endangered the sources connected to them. And those sources were placed in important places in Iraq. True Rove did not name HER name, but he did identify her.

    Now, the part about the article that is scary to me is that the author uses the chance to call for more restrictions on information, tries to tie the PLame case to the credit card information leaks in the past few weeks. To my liberal eye it reads like a subversive call to advance the march of facist tendencies in th post 9/11 world.

    Dont let it succeed. Pay attention to it and brace yourselves. Remember to vote in every election and remember to talk to anyone and everyone about thse issues.

    If we dont fight it now with words and votes and legislation we'll have to fight it later...with whatever comes to hand.

    Ima gunna clean my pump shotty.

  90. Re:Boobies by kanweg · · Score: 1

    Small wonder, given the number of boobies on the Internet.

    Bert

  91. I Spy with my GPS eye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "From the article: "I then went back to Google and got a map of Plame's neighborhood and directions to her home. Google also allowed me to study a high-resolution satellite photo of Plame's house. I could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares."

    In the mean time she was being tracked via her GPS enabled phone.

  92. A Little Information? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

    Karl Rove might have leaked a name, but this woman will be lucky if by the time this is all over, the media hasn't published every single last detail of her life. Seriously, you make it into the news and all the sudden it's open season on every detail about you. There isn't a little info out about her, it's all kinds of crap I've seen in news articles...like her name, her husband, where she lives, where she works, what's she's been doing, her neighbors names....etc etc etc.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  93. Super secret CIA documents found on web! by Precipitous · · Score: 1

    I'm at least as good at finding CIA secrets as this guy. Look what I just found on the web - the CIA's super secret fact book! . It most be secret, since the graphics and style look so hokey.

    --
    My motto: "A cat is no trade for integrity."
  94. Misleading title by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article talks about Googling not for CIA agents in general, but for a very specific agent, one whose identity had been leaked to the press (in a possibly illegal manner, gottal love habeas corpus). I doubt he'd have any luck with finding information Random Spook #3269823.12, unless some "senior administration officials" feel the need to tell us his or her identity...

  95. Not just CIA agents! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
    I was also able to find the president's home address online!

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500

    If you are relying on security-through-obscurity to keep people from tracking you down and harming you, perhaps you should be investing in some other form of security... one that doesn't assume that you are hard to find.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  96. Re:And no crime was committed by steve_ellis · · Score: 0
    She was last stationed out of the country in 1997. In order to violate the law in question, her cover had to have been broken by the end of 2002--Novak's article was written in October of 2003. From http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-12125 7-9887r.htm:

    "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990 ... "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status." Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover. In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday

  97. Re:And no crime was committed by steve_ellis · · Score: 1

    Oops. Correcting my mistake--he wrote a second article in Oct 2003--the first article was written in July 2003. Even if she was still undercover, if she had not been posted outside the US in the last 5 years, no violation of law occurred.

  98. Does not matter how Rove got the info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Passing classified material is a crime even if it is already published in the media; He could have read it from a billboard, and still been guilty of passing the information.
    At least revoke his clearance.

  99. Damn you're good by ehiris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now please locate Osama for us.

  100. Missed point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not Google or the "reporter" who was able to find out something after the fact. It's that the a 3 letter agency doesn't even provide a good cover. You'd think they'd have learned a thing or two from watching a few simple movies.

  101. David Lazarus.... by ejito · · Score: 1

    Who is David Lazarus?

    Where does David live?

    But is he a CIA agent? Stay tuned!

  102. Privacy was a right, once upon a time-Archives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We need a law that says anything which personally identifies a person must be removed from a website unless that person gives continuing concent to keep it up (like agreeing again every 6 months)."

    Don't forget to have it removed from the Internet Archive while you're at it.

  103. to cover up nepotism? by ksheff · · Score: 1

    Doesn't it seem odd that Wilson got his wife to approve of the trip to Africa? Like any bureaucracy, there are certainly rules against this sort of thing at the CIA. What other taxpayer funded trips did wifey sign for and did she ever go along? Sounds like a nice vacation scam to me.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    1. Re:to cover up nepotism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      His wife did not approve his trip. She did not have the authority to so.

      Even if she had done so that does not justify blowing her cover. That's a much greater crime.

      This administration try to do a hatchet job on Wilson, which is just sad since he is a non-partisan diplomat who worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

    2. Re:to cover up nepotism? by Izaak · · Score: 1
      Doesn't it seem odd that Wilson got his wife to approve of the trip to Africa? Like any bureaucracy, there are certainly rules against this sort of thing at the CIA. What other taxpayer funded trips did wifey sign for and did she ever go along? Sounds like a nice vacation scam to me.


      Yup, I bet he was just chompin at the bit for the chance to vacation in NIGERIA! Get real. The only people suggesting Wilson's wife approved the trip are people in the administration trying to cover their collective asses. The director that approved Wilson already came forward and was most certainly not Plame. Wilson was a former ambassador to Africa working under the elder President Bush with numerous foreign government contacts and as such a logical pick for the job. Wilson's wife admittedly acted as the go-between in bringing the job to his attention... but she most certainly did not 'approve' him because she did not have that authority.

    3. Re:to cover up nepotism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wilson? A non-partisan diplomat? That's fucking funny. Put down the kool-aid and walk away before you fuck up your mind any further.

      bureaurcrats don't need cover, so there was nothing to be blown.

  104. So what? by trenton · · Score: 1
    I could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares.
    Sounds like the description of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC. You know, where the President lives?

    What was the writer's point? FUD? Just becuase you know where someone lives means nothing about how defensible that location is.

    --
    Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
  105. Consider this... by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason why there is a special prosecutor is because the CIA asked the justice department to investigate the alleged violation. Atty General John Ashcroft took a look at the allegations and decided that is was worth investigating. It was Ashcroft that assigned Fitzgerald as the special prosecutor.

    Pundits and Politicos can argue over whether she was a NOC or not, but the CIA apparently thought a violation occurred, and I trust they would know her status.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
  106. Ha! Liar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? Well let me tell you, this is totally bogus.

    For instance, just try to find out my zip code, or my date of birth, or even my employer. Go ahead, and reply right here.

    PS - hard to do if you don't know much about me, eh?

  107. Nepotism is Bull by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 1

    Read today's Sidney Blumenthal article at Salon.com. Cheney tasked the CIA, people who knew Wilson's background asked his wife if he would be interested. She probably broached the subject with him, but she didn't 'authorize' him.

    Again, you can believe the spin, or you can determine the facts. Fortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald is concentrating on the facts.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Nepotism is Bull by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      He is. But I still expect you left wingers to bitch and moan when the report comes out, and Karl Rove still isn't a target.

    2. Re:Nepotism is Bull by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 1

      If Patrick Fitzgerald says that Rove didn't do anything illegal, I'll believe him.

      Fitzgerald might be a Republican, but he's a smart, honest, law-and-order Republican. He's a far more competent prosecutor than Ken Starr ever was.

      --
      My father is a blogger.
    3. Re:Nepotism is Bull by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Serious. What kind of horrible wife would rig things to send someone on a pro bono trip to Niger, anyway? What would she do for their aniversary, surprise him by running him over with a car?

      Seriously, all right-wing defenders that is Good and Holy, stick with the 'It was a conspiracy to get him over there to discredit the uranium story' story.

      I know that makes you look silly, because that story needed to be discredited and brings up the fact Wilson was right. (Because it's apparently okay to expose CIA agents and cripple the intelligence gathering aperatus of the US if their husbands are factually incorrect or have a bias in their report, under playground rule #7, 'He started it.'.)

      But claiming 'She rigged things to send him on an all-expenses paid vacation to Niger.' requires postulating a bizzaro universe where people actually wish to go to Niger.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Nepotism is Bull by Izaak · · Score: 1
      If Patrick Fitzgerald says that Rove didn't do anything illegal, I'll believe him.


      Actually, since Karl did not have the security clearance to know about Plame's CIA status, he cannot likely be found guilty of treason or some of the more onerous crimes people have been accusing him of. He could still be found guilty of few things, just don't expect him really crash and burn over this. The bigger question for the investigators is likely 'who leaked it to Karl?'


      Of course, letter of the law aside, it is still a nasty thing to knowingly reveal classified data (undermining our efforts against WMD proliferation) just for political gain. If that is what Rove did, Bush should fire his ass at a minimum. There is some lines you just don't cross.

    5. Re:Nepotism is Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karl Rove didn't have a security clearance??

      That's gotta be BS. I've got a security clearance for lark's sake.

    6. Re:Nepotism is Bull by Izaak · · Score: 1
      Karl Rove didn't have a security clearance??
      That's gotta be BS. I've got a security clearance for lark's sake.


      Yes, but does your security clearance give you access to CIA NOC identities? I am thinking it does not, nor would Rove's... his position does not require that level of clearance. That may seem incidental, but it is a critical point when you examine the 1982 law that people suggest Rove might broken.

    7. Re:Nepotism is Bull by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but does your security clearance give you access to CIA NOC identities?

      Hmm... Wouldn't being given access to CIA NOC identities without proper security clearances be a crime in it's own self?

    8. Re:Nepotism is Bull by ninjagin · · Score: 1
      Actually, Rove is currently a subject of the investigation... one of many. He may not be a target, admittedly. Both the subjects and targets of a grand jury investigation can be indicted.

      --
      .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
  108. ATTN: /.'ers, it's Case Officer Not Agents by CHESTER+COPPERPOT · · Score: 1

    In the CIA directorate of operations they refer to people like plame as a Case Officers not an agent. Agents, in the parlance of foreign intelligence gathering, are networks of informants who have been exploited to do the dirty work for case officers. The nonmenclature of domestic gathering is a bit different. Just pointing it out, cause a lot of you guys chuck hissy fits over hacker/cracker all the time and refering to a case officer as an agent is pretty demeaning to their trade cause agents are usually traitors.

  109. Why is this on slashdot? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if you know a CIA agent's real name you can find out more things about them by searching public records, just like you can for any other american.

    Wow.

    Here is something else I found out -- if you know the address of a buried treasure you can get a nice map from google with directions to that address. So the internet can be used to search for buried treasure. Amazing!

    Seriously, Slashdot editors should be smarter than this.

  110. We're short on... by Dubpal · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    It also points to the need for privacy laws -- and, in this case, national-security laws -- recognizing the harm that can be done with only a few computer keystrokes.

    Yeah, because the one thing the U.S is dangerously short of is national-security laws.

    --
    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
    - George Orwell
  111. MOD PARENT UP! by Maxite · · Score: 1

    Mod that up. That's the funniest comment I've read in a long time.

    Thank you MST3K for that humor.

    --
    Ah, you found me!
  112. you left something out by subtropolis · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    It was the CIA that requested the Justice Dept. to investigate, which in turn got the FBI involved. It's amazing the spin that's being put on this, like, "the Special Prosecutor is out of control" and other such nonsense. The GOP and it's army of shills are practically trying to create the impression that it was Howard Dean who gave Fitzgerald his marching orders.

    BTW, she was "non-offical cover", and she ran an operation tracking those in the world who would seek to aquire nuclear (and biological, i think) weapons. That's right! She was protecting blessed America from 'weapons of mass destruction.' Way to go Republicans.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:you left something out by Boronx · · Score: 1

      And the company she worked for was a CIA front company and all it's operations and agents were blown, too.

    2. Re:you left something out by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
      Right. Some people seem to have the opinion that if she wasn't jumping out of planes and hunting down bad guys in James Bond style, or handing off packages in strange cities after using cool sounding code phrases and such, then there is no real reason to have her identity protected. But there really, really are reasons. And you just mentioned one of them.

      Further, if the proper channels decided that she should have cover, then whoever blew that cover had better have a really good reason for why that was necessary for the national (not personal or political) interests.

      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

  113. Point of View by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    "looks approachable from all sides"

    "has a clear field of fire in all directions"

  114. PLAME WAS NOT UNDERCOVER by thelizman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not suprised slashdot got this wrong. The New York Times reported on this issue over a year ago. Plames cover was believed to have been blown when Aldrich Ames sold NOC lists to the Russians in 1994. Three years later, the CIA recalled her. She hasn't been undercover for years.

  115. you go first by subtropolis · · Score: 1
    low-altitude flight over Camp David or Junior's 'ranch'* a once in a lifetime experience, i'll bet.

    * What's with him always "clearing brush" when he's down there? What baloney. And why the hell is that shithead always on vacation? Do you get that much vacation?

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  116. hey chucklehead by subtropolis · · Score: 1
    yeah, i'm talking to you, slack-jaw. Novak called Rove for 'confirmation' on the story. After mentioning the details about Ms Plame, Rove said, "I heard that, too." That's the sort of handjob operation politicians and the press engage in all the time. He leaked. If he had any sense he would have told Novak nothing and then got on the phone to Tenet. Hell, the call to Rove was probably all worked out between Rove and whoever leaked to Novak in the first place.

    And besides, why would Rove have this information about Plame? If you're an American, you should be feeling *very* uneasy about the people running things right now. They have shown themselves to be utter shitbags and they cannot be trusted.

    For more background to this story, see auraslip's timeline at kuro5hin, Karl Rove is fucked.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:hey chucklehead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Valerie Plame hadn't been undercover since 1997. Tracking forward to the so-called "leak", that's 6 years, 1 more than the law allows for prosecution.

      Bush wins again.

  117. funny by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    So often, when looking up info on some, er, unsavory person, google has the namebase link on the first page. Namebase is great but i don't have a registration so for me it's only good for cross-referencing.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  118. thanks, i thought i'd missed something by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    ho, adn yuo mispeld badly.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  119. Washington Post story by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Here's the story. It was actually a quote from a former supervisor, Fred Rustmann. If you can't trust someone with a good solid name like "fred" then who can you trust? :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  120. Sorry, Wash Times by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The Times, not the Post. All those washington newspapers, who can keep 'em straight?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  121. i noticed that one recently by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    just in the past week or two i've seen that one popping up in the press. I like the Vanity Fair one better, though. Very Hepburn.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  122. Re:And no crime was committed by grammar+fascist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I have mod points today, and I was going to mod this up - but I think I need to make a point.

    The parent post is Score:1, Informative as of now. -1 Overrated, +1 Informative were the moderations. Here's my question: who do these moderators think they are that they can try to silence people who present unpopular facts?

    Come on, Slashdot. You can do better than this.

    --
    I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  123. If Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only it was as easy to find WMD in Iraq via Google...

  124. Re:And no crime was committed by b17bmbr · · Score: 0, Troll

    who do these moderators think they are that they can try to silence people who present unpopular facts?

    how long have you been around here? this is slashdot. the left is seething with hatred. ever read kos? the people there are freaking lunatics. there's no sense of sanity or mental stability. period. wilson is a liar and a fraud. he lied about his report, who sent him, and what he found. he did so to score political points. rememebr, he was the hero of the kerry campaing until he was discovered as a fraud and a hack. remember his website restorehonesty.com? yeah, it was hosted on kerry's site, until the senate testimony, then it was hosed and redirected to kerry's site. click on the link and see where it takes you. surprise surprise. it takes you to johnkerry.com.

    netcraft lookup
    restorehonesty.com:
    ip address 69.20.74.244
    reverse DNS johnkerry.com johnkerry.com: ip address 69.20.74.244
    reverse DNS johnkerry.com

    it doesn't lie.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  125. He was making a point about Rove by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 1

    I think he was making a point about Rove's defense: he is currently claiming that he didn't identify Valerie Plame by name, but only mentioned "Wilson's wife" worked as an undercover agent. So he didn't leak the name, which would be an act of treason.
    The reporter shows that it is ludicrously easy to make the jump from that remark to identifying the person.

    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
  126. Legalized identity fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  127. Rove by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Last year around the Democratic convention, the Bush administration ran a terror alert associated with some buildings in New York.

    To back up the alert, they claimed information about the buildings was found on a computer of an Al Qaida agent that was arrested in Pakistan.

    This was true, but the furor died when it was reported that he'd been under arrest for sometime and the information was old.

    Less widely reported was the reason why Pakistan did not announce the arrest earlier. The Al Qaida agent had flipped. He'd maintained after his arrest contact with a team of terrorists planning a series of attacks.

    When the Bush administration disclosed the arrest, police who were monitering that team had to round them up quickly, in some cases resorting to high speed chases.

    The police arrested a dozen or so plotters, but said their investigation was cut short and they thought it possible that they hadn't yet detected everyone.

    That terrorist team was in the UK, and one of their targets was the London Underground.

    Rove seems to have a pattern of blowing intelligence operations for political gain.

    1. Re:Rove by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Source?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  128. What idiocy by Jesus+2.0 · · Score: 1

    How is this at all relevant?

    "My god, given a person's name, I can find her address! And given her address, I can get a satellite image of her neighborhood! That must imply that that person is an undercover CIA agent!"

    Morons.

  129. Re:And no crime was committed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    who do these moderators think they are that they can try to silence people who present unpopular facts?

    They're irrelevant facts. A more significant fact is that outing her fictictious agencies revealed a lot more identities than hers. Are you prepared to say that none of those people had been out of the country in the past five years?

  130. And from Pournelle more datum by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Another article on the subject from Jerry Pournelle, who is hardly in the administration camp. End of story I'd say.

    Note that she was in the CIA even with the twins, no way she was undercover after she got married basically.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  131. Hmm... by sheldon · · Score: 1

    Your post is filled with at least two lies(that Plame authorized on her own, and that Her husband lied that Cheney sent him), and yet you have the nerve to accuse me of being mindless?

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no case, only rhetoric. With the further revlation that Rove was following standard white house security clerence, you don't have any argument at all.

      I feel for you guys. Doesn't it just piss you off when someone gets away from your witchhunt?

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standard white house security clearance is to give away CIA agents?

      My god, this administration is worse than I thought.

  132. But they can work toward the same retirement plan by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    But they can work toward the same retirement plan anyway: become room temperature.

    Should caution, though, that there are occupational health concerns, and field operatives receive more than their share of (9mm) brain hemorrhages.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  133. And no CRIME was committed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Jury will get to decide, if the Grand Jury thinks it's worth the trouble.

    Of course, there is the separate question of whether Rove's conduct was ethical, even if it was legal. Whose best interest was Rove acting in: the Country, the Office of the President, or Mr. George W. Bush? And what should the consequences be, if not all of these?

    1. Re:And no crime was committed by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Probably because what he is stating aren't "facts" but more like right wing talking points that have a whiff of truth but are mainly spin?

  134. ...comes great blame by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

    Very insightful. We are being shoved into a world where we are obligated to be transparent, but where criminals and savvy businesses can be a bit less so. Thus, if obscurity can be thought of as a "munition," we are being denied the ability to bear that arm anymore, leaving us vulnerable, and with no way back to our simple past.

    Having said that, and assuming most of your neighbors are still honest, what other "arms" are we still left with? Trying to embrace openness as both the problem and the solution, I've been thinking of streaming my own camera output to neighbors, for example. Just as you implied, there are diminishing returns with this. While it may not prevent a burglary (unless the thief suspects you have cameras), it may help track down who did it after the fact. Of course, it isn't guaranteed that the authorities would use your "not invented here" data to track down the criminal, and in fact, the way they operate may oblige them to do nothing at all in order to preserve their own "means and methods" ...in obscurity. In the worst case, this may grow to a "trust gridlock" that helps no one (see: prisoner's dilemma).

    As you said, great power does imply great responsibility, and the more power people grab for themselves, the more things people will blame them for, justified or unjustified.