TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

Paris, July 7, 2005- AP and UPI reported that the French government has
raised its terror alert level from RUN to HIDE on their four level danger
scale.

The two higher French danger levels are Surrender and Collaborate. According
to informed sources, the rise was precipitated by a fire yesterday which
destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing its military.

Sorry. Rumpty did it first.


"Leon" wrote in message
. ..
TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

Paris, July 7, 2005- AP and UPI reported that the French government has
raised its terror alert level from RUN to HIDE on their four level danger
scale.

The two higher French danger levels are Surrender and Collaborate.
According
to informed sources, the rise was precipitated by a fire yesterday which
destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing its
military.

[quote=Leon]Sorry. Rumpty did it first.


Yes, and it really wasn't funny then either.

Leon (in ) said:

| TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

snip

Leon, you make me glad the French enjoy a good joke as much as anyone
else.

Does this mean that it's OK to tell Texas jokes on the wreck? I recall
one about why the /yellow/ rose...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..
TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

Paris, July 7, 2005- AP and UPI reported that the French government has
raised its terror alert level from RUN to HIDE on their four level danger
scale.

The two higher French danger levels are Surrender and Collaborate.
According
to informed sources, the rise was precipitated by a fire yesterday which
destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing its
military.




Typical uneducated American, lol.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Leon (in ) said:

| TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

snip

Leon, you make me glad the French enjoy a good joke as much as anyone
else.

Well actually Morris, Rumpty posted the joke and I accidentally reposted it.
I take no credit. I was trying to send it to a couple of friends.



Does this mean that it's OK to tell Texas jokes on the wreck? I recall
one about why the /yellow/ rose...

Yes please do. I have not heard that one.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:25:16 -0400, Battleax wrote:

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..
TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

Paris, July 7, 2005- AP and UPI reported that the French government has
raised its terror alert level from RUN to HIDE on their four level danger
scale.

Typical uneducated American, lol.

Perhaps you can educate us to when the French were last effective
militarily, then? Hell, even Napolean wasn't from France.

Leon (in ) said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| Leon (in ) said:
||
||| TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE
||
|| snip
||
|| Leon, you make me glad the French enjoy a good joke as much as
|| anyone else.
|
| Well actually Morris, Rumpty posted the joke and I accidentally
| reposted it. I take no credit. I was trying to send it to a couple
| of friends.
|
|| Does this mean that it's OK to tell Texas jokes on the wreck? I
|| recall one about why the /yellow/ rose...
|
| Yes please do. I have not heard that one.

Thought it over and decided to leave you in suspense (discretion being
the better part of valor). I heard the joke in a "private club" in
Lawton [Oklahoma] and consider that it might not be in the best of
taste. The guy telling the joke would /not/ have told it in a similar
setting in Killeen [Texas]. :-)

I'll admit that I'm a mite bothered by those who engage in bashing the
French. Most people everywhere are good and decent and have within
them an amazing courage when they call it up - and the French don't
appear to lack any of the qualities we admire. Seems unjust to talk
about collaboration and surrender without mentioning the resistance
and all of the American (and Canadian /and/ Brit) lives they saved -
and how much risk they took in doing so.

B'sides, they've produced some of the most beautiful woodworking I've
ever seen...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
I'll admit that I'm a mite bothered by those who engage in bashing the
French. Most people everywhere are good and decent and have within
them an amazing courage when they call it up - and the French don't
appear to lack any of the qualities we admire. Seems unjust to talk
about collaboration and surrender without mentioning the resistance
and all of the American (and Canadian /and/ Brit) lives they saved -
and how much risk they took in doing so.

B'sides, they've produced some of the most beautiful woodworking I've
ever seen...


Agreed. The joke could have just as easily had the "French" replaced with
"Texas Aggies"

"Battleax" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..
TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

Paris, July 7, 2005- AP and UPI reported that the French government has
raised its terror alert level from RUN to HIDE on their four level
danger
scale.

The two higher French danger levels are Surrender and Collaborate.
According
to informed sources, the rise was precipitated by a fire yesterday which
destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing its
military.

Typical uneducated American, lol.

Were you born without a sense of humor or did you have it surgically removed
later in life? We are all of course very aware of the French military
victories in the past couple of hundred years. I mean, there
was......ummmmmmm........and then there was the other one......

todd

Leon wrote:
...

Agreed. The joke could have just as easily had the "French" replaced with
"Texas Aggies"

Did Will Rogers ever meet George W. Bush?

I rather doubt it.

--

FF

"Neither one has met me either."

In article ,
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

I'll admit that I'm a mite bothered by those who engage in bashing the
French. Most people everywhere are good and decent and have within
them an amazing courage when they call it up - and the French don't
appear to lack any of the qualities we admire. Seems unjust to talk
about collaboration and surrender without mentioning the resistance
and all of the American (and Canadian /and/ Brit) lives they saved -
and how much risk they took in doing so.

Thank you Morris for the posts.

Boy, Oh boy. I kept telling myself I wasn't gonna post to this as I
don't know French history and can't shout down those "just having a
little fun." However an overview commentary seemed appropriate.

What I don't get in these times is the propensity to bash those who
"we'd" rely on if times got really tough. The French would come to our
aid. As would many other countries who publicly disagreed with our
recent actions. There is such a nasty climate, by many, kicking
long-time friends - be they French or whomever - domestic as well as
international. The attitude is that there's no need to show respect if
they're not going to agree with what "we" say and do. The problem with
that is there is 100% certainty a day will come when help is needed -
money will run out, wars will be lost, catastrophe will befall. Every
single one of those is inevitable in time - and who's going to want to
offer aid after they've been kicked, criticized and made fun of
repeatedly?

Some old-Europe leader was commenting on the US on the world stage a few
years back. In his view, the US was like a teenager - young, idealistic,
and physically fit but with a tendency to act brashly, with immaturity
and with selfishness. I think the US had better try to act a little more
mature, watch its manners and make nice or else we may find ourselves
sent to our room and be made to feel truly alone in the world.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

wrote:
Leon wrote:
...

Agreed. The joke could have just as easily had the "French" replaced with
"Texas Aggies"

Did Will Rogers ever meet George W. Bush?

I rather doubt it.

--

FF

"Neither one has met me either."

Nor Cheney nor Rove.

I love the recent one about Bush maybe firing Rove for leaking Ms.CIA's
name. It would be just a bit like CHarlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

On 22 Jul 2005 05:56:41 -0700, "Charlie Self" wrote:



wrote:
Leon wrote:
...

Agreed. The joke could have just as easily had the "French" replaced with
"Texas Aggies"

Did Will Rogers ever meet George W. Bush?

I rather doubt it.

--

FF

"Neither one has met me either."

Nor Cheney nor Rove.

I love the recent one about Bush maybe firing Rove for leaking Ms.CIA's
name. It would be just a bit like CHarlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

You realize of course the Ms CIA was *not* a clandestine operative during
the time period in question, she had transitioned back to US postings
almost 9 years earlier. You also realize that Wilson had named her in his
own biography ... and of course you also realize that most of her friends
and neighbors knew that she worked at the CIA. i.e, working at the CIA is
not necessarily a matter of national secrecy and certainly not in this
case.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8428
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49903.htm


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 05:56:41 -0700, "Charlie Self" wrote:



wrote:
Leon wrote:
...

Agreed. The joke could have just as easily had the "French" replaced with
"Texas Aggies"

Did Will Rogers ever meet George W. Bush?

I rather doubt it.

--

FF

"Neither one has met me either."

Nor Cheney nor Rove.

I love the recent one about Bush maybe firing Rove for leaking Ms.CIA's
name. It would be just a bit like CHarlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

You realize of course the Ms CIA was *not* a clandestine operative during
the time period in question, she had transitioned back to US postings
almost 9 years earlier. You also realize that Wilson had named her in his
own biography ... and of course you also realize that most of her friends
and neighbors knew that she worked at the CIA. i.e, working at the CIA is
not necessarily a matter of national secrecy and certainly not in this
case.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8428
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49903.htm


Of course I realize that. But I wasn't the one who stated that the
person who leaked her name would be fired. That was GWB, not me. Does
*he* realize that? Yyou'll have to ask him.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize of course the Ms CIA was *not* a clandestine operative
during
the time period in question, she had transitioned back to US postings
almost 9 years earlier. You also realize that Wilson had named her in
his
own biography ... and of course you also realize that most of her
friends
and neighbors knew that she worked at the CIA. i.e, working at the CIA
is
not necessarily a matter of national secrecy and certainly not in this
case.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8428
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49903.htm


Of course I realize that. But I wasn't the one who stated that the
person who leaked her name would be fired. That was GWB, not me. Does
*he* realize that? Yyou'll have to ask him.

Actually, I think what the President said is that anyone who "broke the law"
would be fired. The law in question has a very narrow scope and from what
is known now, it seems pretty clear that Rove didn't break it.

todd

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:13:33 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

Actually, I think what the President said is that anyone who "broke the law"
would be fired. The law in question has a very narrow scope and from what
is known now, it seems pretty clear that Rove didn't break it.

todd



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...e/clinton.html

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Of course I realize that. But I wasn't the one who stated that the
person who leaked her name would be fired. That was GWB, not me. Does
*he* realize that? Yyou'll have to ask him.

Actually, I think what the President said is that anyone who "broke the
law"
would be fired. The law in question has a very narrow scope and from what
is known now, it seems pretty clear that Rove didn't break it.


The reporter, of course, is protected by the first amendment. Interesting.

George wrote:
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Of course I realize that. But I wasn't the one who stated that the
person who leaked her name would be fired. That was GWB, not me. Does
*he* realize that? Yyou'll have to ask him.

Actually, I think what the President said is that anyone who "broke the
law"
would be fired. The law in question has a very narrow scope and from what
is known now, it seems pretty clear that Rove didn't break it.


The reporter, of course, is protected by the first amendment. Interesting.

Actually, no. The reporter is not protected by much of anything. If he
was culpable, then he is liable. There is NO federal shield law, and
the first amendment has no bearing.

The fact is, Bush stated some time ago that anyone who was responsible
for the leak would be fired. Only after Rove was apparently going to be
blamed did GWB stick in the part about anyone breaking a law getting
fired.

The law doesn't have as narrow a scope as you seem to think, but you
can bet that Rove will be found to NOT have broken it.

Shall we consider moving this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Charlie Self wrote:
George wrote:
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Of course I realize that. But I wasn't the one who stated that the
person who leaked her name would be fired. That was GWB, not me. Does
*he* realize that? Yyou'll have to ask him.

Actually, I think what the President said is that anyone who "broke the
law"
would be fired. The law in question has a very narrow scope and from what
is known now, it seems pretty clear that Rove didn't break it.


The reporter, of course, is protected by the first amendment. Interesting.

Actually, no. The reporter is not protected by much of anything. If he
was culpable, then he is liable. There is NO federal shield law, and
the first amendment has no bearing.

That is an issue that might make it to the USSC again. But more to the
point, it has been stated that the law in quesiton criminalizes the
release of the name, not republication by someone without a security
clearance to whom the name has been released.

It might be good to read the law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

It appears that clauses a, and b apply only to persons authorized to
handle classified material while c requires a pattern of behaviour
for a violation.

THAT protects Novak. As, aparently, does his willingness to name
hsi sources given that he has not been held in contempt. Perhaps
he did so with the permission of his sources.


The fact is, Bush stated some time ago that anyone who was responsible
for the leak would be fired. Only after Rove was apparently going to be
blamed did GWB stick in the part about anyone breaking a law getting
fired.

And it remains that he could have demanded they resign as soon as
Novak's article was published. Even if he didn't know who they were
*they* know who they are so he could, at a staff meeting have demanded
that the parties, whomever they were resign and had Cheney make
the same anouncement at his next staff meeting.


The law doesn't have as narrow a scope as you seem to think, but you
can bet that Rove will be found to NOT have broken it.

Yes, Rove may not be one of the two who spoke with Novak. Even if
he was it seems likely that he, and they, will be pardoned befor
being tried.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 05:56:41 -0700, "Charlie Self" wrote:
...
I love the recent one about Bush maybe firing Rove for leaking Ms.CIA's
name. It would be just a bit like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

Conspicuously absent from articles about the alleged converstaion
between Rove and Cooper is the _date_ of that alleged conversation.
If is was after Novak's article was published, Rove may not have
comitted a crime. Given that Cooper got into the matter to do a
story about Novak's story, that relative timing seems likely.

Questions such as that are important as actual guilt or innocence may
turn on finer points of the law. However, criminal liability is not
the only issue. Also at issue is the proper handling of classified
information. As anyone who has a security clearance and is free
to discuss the matter will tell you, people with such access are
prohibitted from divulging classified information even if it has
previously been published on the front page of the New York Times.
Why do suppose Wilson's published criticisms do not make any
direct reference to classified informaion he must have been
privy to? Do you suppose maybe he has not been so authorized?

To break that national security policy for petty political revenge
is proof that the party doing so is not morally fit for access to
classified information. As soon as it became known that someone
(according to Novak, two someones, right?) had broken that policy
the morally correct course of action, as well as the best course of
action from the standpoint of national security was for Bush was to
demand their resignations.


You realize of course the Ms CIA was *not* a clandestine operative during
the time period in question, she had transitioned back to US postings
almost 9 years earlier.

No, I do not. Clearly there is no going back now. It has also been
published that some of her contacts in the field had to be hastily
recalled. I don't know if that is true either.

You also realize that Wilson had named her in his
own biography ...

On what page (so I can check quickly without buying the book if I
find it in a bookstore), and when did he publish?

and of course you also realize that most of her friends
and neighbors knew that she worked at the CIA.

Possibly so, again I don't know. Even so knowing she worked at the
CIA is not the same as working covertly for the CIA.

i.e, working at the CIA is
not necessarily a matter of national secrecy and certainly not in this
case.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml

I've caught NewsMax publishing blatant lies before. I will not
trust them. I do note that the author in that article accuses
Rove of confirming for the Russians, information allegedly provided
by the infamous spy, Aldrich Ames, assuming the Russians read US
newspapers. But as I said, _NewsMax_ is not a reliable source.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8428

My guess is you mean:

'Gergen and Sanger agreed that "everyone" knew Joe Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA." Sanger confirmed this as "common
knowledge" to TAS. Perhaps these facts aren't yet Conventional
Wisdom. '

Absent is any evidence proferred by Gergen and Sanger to support that.
Conspicuously absent is a statement by either man, or anyone else,
that they _themselves_ knew this befor Novak's story was published.

Again, that is not a factor concerning policy for handling classified
information.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49903.htm

Requires online registration.

Again, the men in question, both the two who published the classified
information to Novak and Rove, should Cooper's story be true, and
shold ROve prove to NOT be one of the two who contacted Novak, have
proven that they cannot be trusted with classified information.

That Bush has changed his position from promising to fire "anyone
involced" to firing "anyone who has comitted a crime" speaks for
itself. His next statement will probably be that he'll fire
anyone convicted of a crime, followed by anyone convicted of a
crime whose conviction is not overturned on appeal. Cleary it
is the administration's policy to drag this out as long as possible
so that the perpetrators can be pardoned late enough in his term
to not cause an political damage. Reminds one of Clinton, eh?
Again, he should have demanded their resignations immediately
upon publication of Novak's story.

Also, let's not forget that neither Novak nor anyone else has
ever shown that marriage ro a CIA operative implies that a man
is not qualified for a job, receives preferential treatment in
his selection for it, or is biased in his performance of it.

--

FF

wrote in message oups.com...

Yes, Rove may not be one of the two who spoke with Novak. Even if
he was it seems likely that he, and they, will be pardoned befor
being tried.

--

FF


More likely, it will be determined that no crime was committed. Under the statute, Joseph Wilson's wife was not a "covert agent"
and, therefore, no violation of this statute could have been committed.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Shall we consider moving this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Snicker.

Whereas your other two replies were strictly on?

What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons

"Al Reid" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes, Rove may not be one of the two who spoke with Novak. Even if
he was it seems likely that he, and they, will be pardoned befor
being tried.

--

FF


More likely, it will be determined that no crime was committed. Under the
statute, Joseph Wilson's wife was not a "covert agent"
and, therefore, no violation of this statute could have been committed.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
George wrote:


The reporter, of course, is protected by the first amendment.
Interesting.

Actually, no. The reporter is not protected by much of anything. If he
was culpable, then he is liable. There is NO federal shield law, and
the first amendment has no bearing.

The fact is, Bush stated some time ago that anyone who was responsible
for the leak would be fired. Only after Rove was apparently going to be
blamed did GWB stick in the part about anyone breaking a law getting
fired.

The law doesn't have as narrow a scope as you seem to think, but you
can bet that Rove will be found to NOT have broken it.


Then why isn't the reporter in jail now?

Of course I don't expect you to regard the term "responsible" in terms of
legality. Seems I recall a bit of confusion about perjury a few years
back. If it were given on the honor system - "on background," would it
still be the same?

"John Emmons" wrote in message ...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency—
(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;

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been violated.

George wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
George wrote:


The reporter, of course, is protected by the first amendment.
Interesting.

Actually, no. The reporter is not protected by much of anything. If he
was culpable, then he is liable. There is NO federal shield law, and
the first amendment has no bearing.

The fact is, Bush stated some time ago that anyone who was responsible
for the leak would be fired. Only after Rove was apparently going to be
blamed did GWB stick in the part about anyone breaking a law getting
fired.

The law doesn't have as narrow a scope as you seem to think, but you
can bet that Rove will be found to NOT have broken it.


Then why isn't the reporter in jail now?

Of course I don't expect you to regard the term "responsible" in terms of
legality. Seems I recall a bit of confusion about perjury a few years
back. If it were given on the honor system - "on background," would it
still be the same?

Cute little trick. You really can't expect me to explain the
motivations of the justice department. Quite possibly, the reporter
isn't in jail because his politics match those of the incumbents. Or
not.

I have no idea. Nor do you, so you babble about meaningless bits of
history. History is over. Done. Finished. If you want to go back and
prosecute perjurers, go for it. If you can find some legal beagles to
help.

George wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Shall we consider moving this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Snicker.

Whereas your other two replies were strictly on?

No, did you thin they were?

If not, why the surprise at my suggestion?

--

FF

Al Reid wrote:
"John Emmons" wrote in message news:ZD8Fe.3289=
...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well =
have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you kn=
ow.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or=
a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(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;

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been viol=
ated.

Do you suppose she might have gone abroad on CIA business during the
five
years prior to Novak's article? Do you suppose that if she did, she
is not allowed to say so?


To _which_ statute do you refer? I do not see that in:

TITLE 50 CHAPTER 15 SUBCHAPTER IV =A7 421

=A7 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover
intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(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.

See:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...000421----000=
-=2Ehtml


So where did you find the definition of covert agent.

And again, criminal liability is only one issue. Violation of National
Security Policy is another. The persons involved plainly cannot be
trusted with access to classified information. It seems likely that
Bush has continued to allow them to have such access.

--=20

FF

No actually I'm not missing it at all. What I'm saying is that maybe, just
maybe, there was more to what she was doing than is currently and publically
known. Which of course is sorta the definition of "covert". For example,
Brewster, Jennings was at least one of her covers, a corp. set up and run by
the CIA, who's actual purpose was apparently to investigate the connections
between terrorist money laundering and the oil industry using various banks,
including the one that bailed the President out at Harken Oil.

CIA analysts have stated publically that there have been and are "covert"
agents working at CIA headquarters, some of the ones who testified recently
know Plame personally. Should we maybe, again, maybe listen to what they're
saying before we simply take the talking points put out by Ken Mehlman as
the gospel?

After all I believe it was he, Mehlman, who claimed that Amb. Wilson outed
his own wife in his book, never mind the truth that Mr. Novak wrote his
column naming Plame, a year prior to Wilson's book being published, in other
words, Wilson confirmed his wife's job only AFTER her cover was blown. Just
one lie amongst many put out by people who seem to agree with Mr. Rove,
"Wilson's wife is fair game..."

And what's in the news today, it seems that the President's own former chief
of staff, Andrew Card, who by the way, was in possession of a classified
memo advising him of Plame's identity, was informed by then counsel to the
President Gonzales that a Justice Dept. investigation had been started in
the matter. Strange that Gonzales didn't inform the president that his own
staff was under investigation don't you think? But after all, it had already
been announced by the White House that any link to the President's chief
advisor, Mr. Rove, was "ridiculous".

And the beat goes on...



"Al Reid" wrote in message
...
"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well
have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you
know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or
a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(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;

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been
violated.

Al Reid wrote:
"John Emmons" wrote in message ...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(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;

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been violated.

Do you suppose she might have gone abroad on CIA business during the
five
years prior to Novak's article? Do you suppose that if she did, she
is not allowed to say so?


To _which_ statute do you refer? I do not see that in:

TITLE 50 CHAPTER 15 SUBCHAPTER IV § 421

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover
intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(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.

See:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html


So where did you find the definition of covert agent.

And again, criminal liability is only one issue. Violation of National
Security Policy is another. The persons involved plainly cannot be
trusted with access to classified information. It seems likely that
Bush has continued to allow them to have such access.

--

FF


Go to the bottom of the page and continue reading the statute. The definitions are at the end.

As far as her going abroad on CIA business, her husbands book and other sources seem to indicate that she settled down to raise a
family and had not traveled abroad in the 5 years preceding the disclosure. It also seems to me that if one said "Joe Wilson's
wife" and one comes up with "Valerie Plame", it must not have been a very good secret.

Al Reid wrote:
"John Emmons" wrote in message ...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(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;


Oh, here it is:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

You omitted:

or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is classified information, and-

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or
informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence
agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or
informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign
counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C)...

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been violated.

False. None of the conditions under (A) or (C) are required if the
conditions under (B) are met. Under (B) (i) OR (ii) each is
sufficient.
(B) (i) would appear to be inapplicable. (B) (ii) may be, I will
neither confirm nor deny that I am privy to that informatinon.


--

FF

wrote in message ups.com...


Al Reid wrote:
"John Emmons" wrote in message ...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces
assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(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;


Oh, here it is:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

You omitted:

or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is classified information, and-

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or
informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence
agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or
informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign
counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C)...


You are correct that I omitted B and C. I did so because I don't think either applies. My reading of (B) covers US citizens who
are not CIA, FBI or other "agency" employess that are acting under cover. She is/was a CIA employee and falls into (A).

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been violated.

False. None of the conditions under (A) or (C) are required if the
conditions under (B) are met. Under (B) (i) OR (ii) each is
sufficient.
(B) (i) would appear to be inapplicable. (B) (ii) may be, I will
neither confirm nor deny that I am privy to that informatinon.


--

FF

Al Reid wrote:
...
You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency =
or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classifie=
d information, *AND*
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last fi=
ve years served outside the United States;

Both (1) and (ii) must be true in order for the statute to have been vi=
olated.

Do you suppose she might have gone abroad on CIA business during the
five
years prior to Novak's article? Do you suppose that if she did, she
is not allowed to say so?


To _which_ statute do you refer? I do not see that in:

TITLE 50 CHAPTER 15 SUBCHAPTER IV =A7 421

=A7 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover
intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(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.

See:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...00000421----0=
00-.html


So where did you find the definition of covert agent.

And again, criminal liability is only one issue. Violation of National
Security Policy is another. The persons involved plainly cannot be
trusted with access to classified information. It seems likely that
Bush has continued to allow them to have such access.

--

FF


Go to the bottom of the page and continue reading the statute. The defin=
itions are at the end.

To be precise, they are several pages later. You can get there from
the link above by pressing 'next' at the bottom left corner of the
page.


As far as her going abroad on CIA business, her husbands book and other s=
ources seem to indicate that she settled down to raise a
family and had not traveled abroad in the 5 years preceding the disclosur=
e=2E

Supposign she had covertly traveled abroad in the previous five years,
woudl you suppose her husband would publish information about that
(those) covert trips?

Besides, Section (B) of the statute you cited is independant of (A)
and does not require foreign travel.

It also seems to me that if one said "Joe Wilson's
wife" and one comes up with "Valerie Plame", it must not
have been a very good secret.

Now that's really dense. The marriage was not classified. Her work
was classified which is not to say that the fact that she worked
for the CIA was classified. There are overt CIA employees who do
classified work and her precise status is not particularly clear.

IIRC at the time of WIlson's trip Valerie Plame officially worked
for the State Department. Do you suppose Novak's informants could
have given Novak the very same story referring to Wilson's wife as
a State Department Employee, rather than as a CIA employee?

Is there any doubt that they acted with mens re, even if they somehow
avoided mens actis?

Is there any doubt that they cannot be trusted to properly handle
classified information?

--=20

FF

Al Reid wrote:
wrote in message ups.com...


Al Reid wrote:
"John Emmons" wrote in message ...
What specific date and time was Ms. Plame brought in, so to speak, from
being a "covert" agent?

Seems that I've read and heard on various news shows that she may well have
been working on covert operations even while based at CIA headquarters.
Could it be that there is more to what she was doing than has been made
public as of yet? They aren't all running around like James Bond you know.

Of course I'm sure that a few folks here on usenet know more about her
status than the federal investigators do...

John Emmons


You are missing what "Covert Agent" means under the statute.

(4) The term "covert agent" means-
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces
assigned
to duty with an intelligence agency-
(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;


Oh, here it is:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

You omitted:

or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is classified information, and-

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or
informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence
agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or
informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign
counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C)...


You are correct that I omitted B and C. I did so because I don't think either applies. My reading of (B) covers US citizens who
are not CIA, FBI or other "agency" employess that are acting under cover. She is/was a CIA employee and falls into (A).

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.



(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the
United States is classified information,

Valery Plame was (and is) a United States citizen whose intelligence
relationship to the United states was (and is) classified information.

That is a precise match to Valery Plame who was overtly employed by the

State Department.


To my knowledge, her relationship has NOT been officially declassified.
No newspaper is authorized to declassify classified information. The
fact that classified information has been published does not mean
that it is declassified that publication does not release parties
from their obligation to safeguard it. Probably they ARE allowed
and may even be REQUIRED to publicly lie about what they do or do
not know, don;t you think?

--

FF