So much for your assumptions...

[Partha]

No that is not really my point.......my point is they made mention of the paragraph being marked Secret......as it contained Plame's name. They made no mention of the classification of the other paragraphs.......nor of the document. Clearly this was done for one of two reasons: 1) Either they did not know of the classification of the document or the other paragraphs, or 2) They knew the classification but omitted it for effect.

Making it look as if the only paragraph in the document marked Secret was the one with Plame's name makes it look like the reason it is marked secret is because of Plame's name.

That and that Partha can't keep his story straight.

Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that they're not going to stick information marked SECRET in the middle of an unclassified document that anyone can have access to. Well, maybe in BizarroBushLand, but not here on this world.

[Trollbait]

What Partha and the rest of you are missing is very very simple.....

A NOC's name would NEVER appear in ANY document marked "Secret"

"Secret" is a middle security classification. It is hardly sufficient to cover an intelligence asset.

It does not matter to me where on the paper the "Secret not for foreign realease" marks are.

Therefore they received no knowledge of Plame's identity from the CIA; it was information they already had on file - which says nothing about whether or not she was covert

Her name and employment status had to come from the CIA originally. If she was really covert then that information would never have been released to the State Dept. So what if they got the information contained in this memo from their electronic files......where did they get the informationed contained in their electronic files?

if anyone is best informed as to whether she was covert or not, it was the CIA.

What does it prove that the CIA asked for an investigation? Suddenly the CIA's motivation is pure as the driven snow? Allow me to remind you that at the time this investigation was requested the CIA was in a virtual war with the administration. Take from that what you will.

[Trollbait]

Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that they're not going to stick information marked SECRET in the middle of an unclassified document that anyone can have access to. Well, maybe in BizarroBushLand, but not here on this world.

That makes no sense, Partha.

I am saying they stuck UNCLASSIFIED informations (Plames name and job) in the middle of a classified document.

What I am also saying is if Plame was truly a NOC then the classification of the document was insufficient. It is simply NOT DONE to put a covert human assets name in a middle level classified departmental memo.

[Partha]

Once again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that they're not going to stick information marked SECRET in the middle of an unclassified document that anyone can have access to. Well, maybe in BizarroBushLand, but not here on this world.

That makes no sense, Partha.

I am saying they stuck UNCLASSIFIED informations (Plames name and job) in the middle of a classified document.

What I am also saying is if Plame was truly a NOC then the classification of the document was insufficient. It is simply NOT DONE to put a covert human assets name in a middle level classified departmental memo.

What you are saying, once again, is incorrect. Her name and job were classified. Certainly the CIA and the special prosecutor disagree with your base contention, and I'm willing to bet they have much more information at their disposal than a third-rate civilian contractor who is unable to remember what he signs.

Lastly, the document itself is classified at least ORCON and NOFORN. Since you don't read your booklets or procedure manuals, allow me to link the relevant information on ORCON:

10.0 Authorized Control Markings

10.1 "DISSEMINATION AND EXTRACTION OF INFORMATION CONTROLLED BY ORIGINATOR" (ORCON)

10.1.1 This marking may be used only on classified intelligence that clearly identifies or would reasonably permit ready identification of intelligence sources or methods that are particularly susceptible to countermeasures that would nullify or measurably reduce their effectiveness. It is used to enable the originator to maintain continuing knowledge and supervision of the further use of intelligence beyond the original dissemination. This control marking may not be used when an item of information will reasonably be protected by use of any other control markings specified herein or in other DCIDs.

10.1.2 Information bearing this marking may be disseminated within the headquarters elements [footnote 3] of recipient organizations and may also be incorporated in whole or in part into other briefings or production, provided the briefing or intelligence product is presented or distributed only to original recipients of the information. Dissemination beyond headquarters elements or to agencies other than the original recipients requires advance permission from the originator.

10.1.3 Information bearing this marking must not be used in taking investigative action without the advance permission of the originator.

10.1.4 As this is the most restrictive marking herein, agencies will establish procedures to ensure that 1) that it is only applied to particularly sensitive intelligence and, 2) timely review of requests for further dissemination of intelligence bearing this marking. This marking may be abbreviated "ORCON" or "OC."

So, in other words, her identity and job title were placed in a document with 'the most restrictive' markings, used only to protect 'ready identification of intelligence sources' and unable to be used 'when an item of information will reasonably be protected by use of any other control markings specified herein or in other DCIDs'.

Gee, I dunno, sounds secret to me and most everyone else here not practicing CBA....

[Trollbait]

LOL....very rich....coming from a proven liar.


You are such a dumbass.

Since you apparrently know dick all about classification allow me to illuminate.....

There are 3 major classifications.

A NOC would fall under the top most of the three.

Lets say Tom has a "Secret" security clearance.

Does that mean Tom is authorized to view all materials marked "Secret"?

No.

Lets say Tom works for the State Dept. and there is a document that is marked "Secret" but is not supposed to be viewed by Tom.

How do you subclassify a document or information contained within a document that is marked "Secret" so people know that Tom is out of the loop?

Easy. You mark it with a subclassification.

The particular subclassification (ORCON) is used when you want to shield a specific piece of data.

The classification (ORCON) would be listed at the toip and bottom of every page so that readers of the document are aware that the document contains information that is classified by the ORCON attribute.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS CLASSIFIED BY THE ORCON ATTRIBUTE. THE PARAGRAPH CONTAINING THE INFORMATION COVERED BY SUCH A CLASSIFICATION IS MARKED WITH THE ORCON MARKING SPECIFICALLY.

If you look closely at the document you will notice something very telling.

The paragraph containing Valerie Wilson's name and job is NOT marked ORCON.

In fact there is only ONE paragraph marked ORCON in the entire document. That is the paragraph that refers to a specific NIE document and I would expect that paragraph to be marked ORCON.

You see Partha, you would have a point if the paragraph mentioning Valerie Wilson was marked ORCON, but since it is not I think you clearly demonstrated my entire point for me in your attempt to play "gotcha".

[Trollbait]

Certainly the CIA and the special prosecutor disagree with your base contention

1) The prosecutor is basing her covert status on what the CIA has told him it is.

2) Suddenly, when it suits you, the CIA has pure motives in asking for an investigation. Apparently it never occured to you that they may have an agenda not the least of which would be covering their own ass at having an employee arrange to send her own husband on a crucial intel gathering mission.

[Partha]

Canard upon canard, all upon a rich pile of canards.

First, Plame was classified. So sayeth the prosecutor.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/docum ... 102005.pdf

WASHINGTON – Senior White House official I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on
obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Secondly, the document is marked at the top and bottom of every single page with at least two and possibly more classifications, depending on whiteout. It would not be reasonable to hand such a document to an unclassified person, regardless of which sections were subclassifed. Get it?

Third, Plame did not send Wilson. From the Newsday article:

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,’ he said. ‘There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,’ he said. ‘I can’t figure out what it could be.’ 'We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there,’ the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses. (July 22 2003)

Other senior CIA officials said the same thing to the Select Committee on Intelligence for their report. If you have proof they lied, demonstrate it here or go back to not reading your SP 312.

[Zyllen]

So sayeth the prosecutor.

Holy shit dude, you are using "the prosecutor says it, so it must be so" as an argument?

Christ on a pogostick, if everyone a prosecutor said was guilty actually were guilty, the country would be empty, except for me and a few of my closest friends. Everyone else would be sitting in jail, due to some prosecutor trying to make a name for him/herself.

Trials are just an afterthough, I guess.

[Trollbait]

It would not be reasonable to hand such a document to an unclassified person

I do not disagree. I also do not see what that statement has to do with anything.

Plame was classified. So sayeth the prosecutor.

I also do not disagree that the prosecutor is operating under the assumption that Plame was classified.

the document is marked at the top and bottom of every single page with at least two and possibly more classifications

Yes. If you read closely I mentioned that in my previous post and related that it is appropriate for those notations to be at the top and bottom of every page. It informs the readers that the document contains those subclassifications but does not mean the entire document falls into that subclassification. What is relevant is that the particular paragraph relating to Plame is NOT subclassified with the ORCON attribute. Only one paragraph is and it does not mention Plame.

Plame did not send Wilson

I will see your Newsday article and raise you one STATE DEPT. MEMO and one SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT.

http://www.nysun.com/article/31062?page_no=4

A Senate Intelligence Committee report issued in July 2004 said Ms. Plame "suggested his name for the trip."

http://www.nysun.com/pics/31062_2.php

Meeting apparently convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD managerial type and the wife of Amb. Joe Wilson, with the idea that the agency and the larger USG could dispatch Joe to Niger to use his contacts there to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium sale question

lol

Other senior CIA officials said the same thing to the Select Committee on Intelligence for their report.

Again, we are back to "but....but....the CIA said".

[Partha]

So you are claiming they lied. You have proof of this, or only bias?

[Chants Evensong]

How does this memo fit into the theory that Bushco deliberately outed a NOC vital to national security in a petty act of revenge against an administration critic who debunked the assertion that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger?

First, as I noted before, this memo is the likely leak vector. It names the alleged NOC and places that information and her involvement in the Joe Wilson's Niger trip aquarely within the State Dept., which is part of the Administration. It also names her in a paragraph marked S/NF, indicating that information contained within that paragraph should be treated with sensitivity.

However, Plame's purported status as a NOC is not noted anywhere in the memo. Also, her name is mentioned in passing, clearly as background information, in a paragraph not marked ORCON and containing clearly more sensitive -- and redacted -- information. Furthermore, onther clearly non-secret information is contained in the memo, such as Joe Wilson's identity. Finally, all the other paragraphs are marked secret. Thus, nothing in that memo indicated that Plame's affilation with the CIA was driving the secrecy of the memo. If this memo is the leak vector, then it did not in anyway identify Plame as anything resembling a NOC, much less one vital to national security.

As Kulaf noted, Plame's presence in the memo stems from the notes of an INR representitive that attended the February 19, 2002 meeting at the CIA where she introduced Joe Wilson. So, if indeed Plame was a NOC, and her affiliation with the CIA was a secret vital to national security, then one may ask how it was that the CIA created a situtation where her presence and affiliation at and with the CIA would appear in another intelligence agency's memo, an agency with no apparent knowledge of her purported status.

I have read elsewhere on this board that Plame's cover was a CIA WMD analyst. FOr a successful prosecution under the IIPA to occurr, it must be shown that the CIA was making affirmative measures to conceal the agents affiliation with the government. A CIA analyst is not an acceptable cover story.

So if anything, this memo does not fit well into the theory that Bushco deliberately outed a NOC. If she was a NOC, then her appearance in an INR memo in a paragraph not marked with the highest level of security shows a slip up somewhere in the CIA. More importantly, the probable leak vector -- the memo -- did not give Bushco the necessary information to make a deliberate NOC disclosure.

Now of course if may be argued that Bushco got its information regarding Plame's NOC status elsewhere. But of course making that argument would require a tacit admission that the INR memo is not the smoking gun as was previously represented.

[Trollbait]

So you are claiming they lied. You have proof of this, or only bias?

I am saying it is a possibility and that the memo supports a reasonable conclusion that Valerie Plames status was not what the CIA claimed it to be.

[Partha]

Oh, and while we're at it: The declassified memo states that the meeting was convened by Valerie Wilson at which Joe Wilson discussed his plans. Since one can assume that plans are something not done by the seat of the pants, it infers that he was selected to do this before that meeting - and, as the Select Intelligence committee report makes clear on page 39, it was not Valerie Wilson who made the decision to send Joe Wilson - it was the CPD who decided it.

Now, would you finally like to give up your previously discredited line of attack?

[Trollbait]

EXACTLY right Chants.

[Trollbait]

it was not Valerie Wilson who made the decision to send Joe Wilson

Partha being a dumbass again.

Valerie Plame did not SEND Wilson......I am saying she RECOMMENDED him.

Btw, you are flopping around this issue like a fish in a boat. Why don't you try and refute what Chants and I have said?

[Partha]

I have read elsewhere on this board that Plame's cover was a CIA WMD analyst.

Plame's cover was Brewster Jennings. Why do you consistently misstate things to maintain old discredited modes of attack?

[Partha]

2) Suddenly, when it suits you, the CIA has pure motives in asking for an investigation. Apparently it never occured to you that they may have an agenda not the least of which would be covering their own ass at having an employee arrange to send her own husband on a crucial intel gathering mission.

Valerie Plame did not SEND Wilson......I am saying she RECOMMENDED him.

Your versions of truth change wildly from moment to moment.

[Trollbait]

Plame's cover was Brewster Jennings

Then how did the admin learn about her relationship to Brewster Jennings? That is not contained in the much touted memo..............


Please.....do not ignore the other points as well.....I invite you to refute them with your vast knowledge of the inner workings of NOC agents and the CIA.

[Partha]

So the argument has changed from "she wasn't covert" to "they didn't know she was covert."

Sweet. We've been down this primrose path before.

[Trollbait]

Your versions of truth change wildly from moment to moment.

A first year English major could tell you that those two statements are not incompatible.

"arrange" as in arrange a meeting with her husband.....hmmm......recommended ?(sp?)