White House outs CIA official by mistake (1 Viewer)

[SlyPokerDog]

(CNN) -- The White House accidentally revealed the name of the CIA's top intelligence official in Afghanistan to some 6,000 journalists.

The person was included on a list of people attending a military briefing for President Barack Obama during his surprise visit to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan on Sunday.

It's common for such lists to be given to the media, but names of intelligence officials are almost always not provided. In this case, the individual's name was listed next to the title, "Chief of Station."

The print pool reporter -- a journalist allowed access to or information about an event who relays it to the rest of the media -- copied and pasted the list that was provided by the White House.

Print pool reports are then distributed by the White House press office, which does not edit them, to a large list of media.

In this case, the same reporter, who works for the Washington Post, noticed the unusual entry after the list was distributed and then checked it out with officials.

The White House followed up and distributed a shorter list from a different reporter that did not include the station chief's name.

A station chief heads the CIA's office in a foreign country, establishing a relationship with its host intelligence service and overseeing agency activities.

The identity of station chiefs, like most CIA officers, are rarely disclosed to protect them and their ability to operate secretly.

Given the potentially dangerous nature of the situation, CNN has not broadcast or published online the name of the official.

In the most recent case before this one, the Bush administration infamously leaked the name of former CIA officer Valerie Plame to a journalist in 2003.

Plame tweeted on Monday that the White House's mistake this past weekend is "astonishing."

Top U.S. spy pulled from Pakistan after terror threats


http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/cia-white-house/

 

[RR7]

Another chance for political back and forth, woohoo. One side says oh now we should flip out, because you did previously, other side says hey before you told us not to flip out, so let's not flip out. Sheep, etc. blah blah blah. Politics!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Another chance for political back and forth, woohoo. One side says oh now we should flip out, because you did previously, other side says hey before you told us not to flip out, so let's not flip out. Sheep, etc. blah blah blah. Politics!

Hahahahaha! That sums it up nicely.

 

[RR7]

Hahahahaha! That sums it up nicely.

Not meaning to shit on your thread, it's newsworthy, and thus topic worthy, just how I see it basically playing out.

 

[PapaG]

Another chance for political back and forth, woohoo. One side says oh now we should flip out, because you did previously, other side says hey before you told us not to flip out, so let's not flip out. Sheep, etc. blah blah blah. Politics!

Nah, it's OK when Democrats out CIA operatives. I hope the person's family in the States are taking precautions. This isn't like Dick Armitage outing Valerie Plame, ffs!

I expect zero outrage to come from this in the media. Only 6000 journalists got the name, and I'm sure they all will burn it from their memory. It was just a mistake.

 

[jlprk]

Psychology of motivation:
Outrage is what PapaG lives for. Many Republican haters have no inner energy other than aggression. Negative emotions fuel any accomplishments they manage, so they must invent outrages to get through the day.

Back to the thread:
The lousy CNN article above didn't pursue the source. Other articles note that the information came up through a couple of levels of the military, where the name should have been censored, then a couple of levels of diplomacy, which didn't look at the paragraphs emanating from the military.

 

[PapaG]

Psychology of motivation:
Outrage is what PapaG lives for. Many Republican haters have no inner energy other than aggression. Negative emotions fuel any accomplishments they manage, so they must invent outrages to get through the day.

Back to the thread:
The lousy CNN article above didn't pursue the source. Other articles note that the information came up through a couple of levels of the military, where the name should have been censored, then a couple of levels of diplomacy, which didn't look at the paragraphs emanating from the military.

What does that have to do with Amb. Stevens being 39 years-old and in charge of a staff of two people?

 

[Denny Crane]

Richard Armitage.

/thread

 

[PapaG]

Richard Armitage.

/thread

Yeah, I already posted that in this thread. Close the thread!!

 

[Denny Crane]

Special prosecutor didn't go after armitage. Precedent. No need for outrage or a prosecutor this time.

 

[PapaG]

Special prosecutor didn't go after armitage. Precedent. No need for outrage or a prosecutor this time.

So you're saying the Plame thing was 100% political. I agree. Scooter Libby being a convicted felon for not echoing Tim Russert's recollection was the political witch-hunt of the 2000s. Bill Clinton committing perjury was the result of the political witch-hunt of the 1990s.

 

[Denny Crane]

So you're saying the Plame thing was 100% political. I agree. Scooter Libby being a convicted felon for not echoing Tim Russert's recollection was the political witch-hunt of the 2000s.

I'm saying accidentally outing a CIA agent is not a crime.

I don't know all that Libby did to piss off Fitzgerald, but he did. And W did not pardon Libby.

It sure looks like W's administration was willing to be investigated. The office of atty general (Ashcroft) appointed Fitzgerald to investigate.

Libby was convicted of perjury. Whatever he did, a grand jury indicted Libby, and he was convicted by a jury. Some conspiracy!

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Why do they care if CIA people are gay?

 

[MARIS61]

Isn't this the main point in the administration's argument to convict Snowden? That by releasing the info he may have outed some CIA personnel, possibly endangering their lives?

Exactly where do we draw the line between Death by Firing Squad and No Punishment At All for the same "offense"?

 

[Denny Crane]

Isn't this the main point in the administration's argument to convict Snowden? That by releasing the info he may have outed some CIA personnel, possibly endangering their lives?

Exactly where do we draw the line between Death by Firing Squad and No Punishment At All for the same "offense"?

Snowden's actions were deliberate. The outing of the two CIA agents was accidental. There's the line that has been drawn.

If there was anything in the Plame case that really was egregious, IMO, it was the way Fitzgerald went after members of the press. He required them to testify, provide their written notes, and even jailed Judith Miller for refusing to reveal her sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97–200, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421–426) is a United States federal law that makes it a federal crime for those with access to classified information, or those who systematically seek to identify and expose covert agents and have reason to believe that it will harm the foreign intelligence activities of the U.S.,[1] to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent whom one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency, unless the United States has publicly acknowledged or revealed the relationship.[2]

 

[Cryptkeeper]

 

[PapaG]

The WH is investigating itself! I expect huge results.

White House launches internal probe into accidental outing of CIA official

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...al-probe-into-accidental-outing-cia-official/

The White House has launched an internal probe after its press office inadvertently outed the top CIA official in Afghanistan -- a national security blunder that could put that individual at risk.

A spokeswoman with the National Security Council confirmed to Fox News that the White House chief of staff asked White House Counsel Neil Eggleston to “look into what happened” and make recommendations on “how the administration can improve processes and make sure something like this does not happen again.”

The brief statement from the National Security Council was the first on-the-record comment made by the administration since the CIA official’s name was disclosed over the weekend. The internal review, though, reflects the severity of the error.

The official's name, identified as "chief of station," was included in the White House press office's basic list of senior officials President Obama met with during his surprise visit to Afghanistan’s Bagram air base on Sunday. The list of 15 names apparently came first from the military, and was circulated by the White House press office.

The list then went to a much wider audience when it was included as part of what's known as a "pool report," which in this case was filed by The Washington Post's Scott Wilson.

It was only after Wilson raised the issue with the White House, according to the Post, that officials sought to circulate a new list without the officer's name. But by that point, the mistake already had been noted on Twitter.

As the White House looks into what went wrong, it is taking heavy criticism for the mistake.

"There's simply no excuse for it," John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Fox News on Tuesday, saying the blunder left him "speechless."

"In a White House that is filled with press flacks ... was there no one who understood the significance of what they were doing?" he said. "Somebody's head should roll for this. ... This is utter incompetence."

FoxNews.com is not publishing the name of the chief of station.

The fact that it was circulated at all, though, raises security concerns.

Several CIA station chiefs in Pakistan have been exposed during the course of the war in Afghanistan. One of them had to be removed from the country in 2010.

It's unclear whether the administration will be forced to take that step here. Bolton noted that the official's identity would have been known to some in the Afghan government anyway -- though the exposure could also damage intelligence operations.

The most recent high-profile incident of a U.S. official exposing a CIA agent was the outing of operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.

In this case, the original list circulated by the White House included several names of well-known public officials, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham, as well as that of the chief of station.

According to the Post, Wilson noticed the reference to the station chief after he had already sent out the pool report.

When he raised the issue, the press office did not raise any objection, according to the Post. But the office later reportedly scrambled to send around a new list, without the officer's name -- apparently realizing the error.

"Soon after, I think that they talked to their bosses, and realized that it was not OK," Wilson told The Guardian. "And they tried to figure out what to do about this, if there was a way to kind of un-ring the bell."

Wilson said it appeared "very junior people" were just trying to follow an order without realizing the "ramifications."

Wilson also said he wishes he had caught the mistake before sending out the list in the pool report.

"I wish I had, I regret it," he reportedly said.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Why do they care if CIA people are gay?

repped

 

[PapaG]

I'm saying accidentally outing a CIA agent is not a crime.

Plame was a desk jockey for the CIA at the time of her "outing." It wasn't a crime because it wasn't a crime. Her husband for some reason was sent on a trip to Nigeria, where he apparently sipped on tea.

 

[Denny Crane]

Plame was a desk jockey for the CIA at the time of her "outing." It wasn't a crime because it wasn't a crime. Her husband for some reason was sent on a trip to Nigeria, where he apparently sipped on tea.

Oh really?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18924679/#.U4Us0xant4E

WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

 

[PapaG]

Oh really?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18924679/#.U4Us0xant4E

WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

She worked at Foggy Bottom when she was "outed." She drove there from the suburbs. She had a Foggy Bottom parking decal on her car window. Why do you think Armitage was never charged? It's because Plame wasn't actually covert (although she may have had that label ... I've seen the delays of the federal government in changing a person's status), many people knew she worked at Foggy Bottom, and there were dozens of witnesses to refute the "outing." Instead, it became a way to try and indict Karl Rove, but he was too smart to fall into a perjury trap, so they had to settle on Scooter Libby after Tim Russert died. Russert couldn't have contradicted his own prior testimony, since he was dead. So, it was Libby's word against a dead man's word.

 

[jlprk]

She worked at Foggy Bottom when she was "outed." She drove there from the suburbs. She had a Foggy Bottom parking decal on her car window. Why do you think Armitage was never charged? It's because Plame wasn't actually covert (although she may have had that label ... I've seen the delays of the federal government in changing a person's status), many people knew she worked at Foggy Bottom, and there were dozens of witnesses to refute the "outing." Instead, it became a way to try and indict Karl Rove, but he was too smart to fall into a perjury trap, so they had to settle on Scooter Libby after Tim Russert died. Russert couldn't have contradicted his own prior testimony, since he was dead. So, it was Libby's word against a dead man's word.

What does this have to do with the fact that Republicans gave the secret Libyan "Ambassador" his job title only to create their Outrage of the Day?

 

[Denny Crane]

She worked at Foggy Bottom when she was "outed." She drove there from the suburbs. She had a Foggy Bottom parking decal on her car window. Why do you think Armitage was never charged? It's because Plame wasn't actually covert (although she may have had that label ... I've seen the delays of the federal government in changing a person's status), many people knew she worked at Foggy Bottom, and there were dozens of witnesses to refute the "outing." Instead, it became a way to try and indict Karl Rove, but he was too smart to fall into a perjury trap, so they had to settle on Scooter Libby after Tim Russert died. Russert couldn't have contradicted his own prior testimony, since he was dead. So, it was Libby's word against a dead man's word.

The law requires that someone deliberately and knowingly outed an operative. It doesn't seem Armitage did it deliberately. Or Fitzgerald couldn't prove it.

Plane travelled overseas multiple times a year under cover. Decal on her car or not.

 

[Denny Crane]

What does this have to do with the fact that Republicans gave the secret Libyan "Ambassador" his job title only to create their Outrage of the Day?

I question your reasoning on all of this nonsense.

http://m.state.gov/md197696.htm

If it ain't the acid, is it senility?

 

[jlprk]

I question your reasoning on all of this nonsense.

http://m.state.gov/md197696.htm

If it ain't the acid, is it senility?

You don't mind if I quickly dismiss your every post by calling you a rich man everytime, do you?

 

[Denny Crane]

You don't mind if I quickly dismiss your every post by calling you a rich man everytime, do you?

I didn't quickly dismis your post. It was so incredible a claim that I had to go find Hillary's speech at the real world ambassador's swearing in ceremony.

The simpler explanation is grounded in fact. Hillary and Obama's foreign policy was a disaster and a drag on Obama's chances to beat Romney. So they lied their asses off to cover up their incompetence.

Nobody should have been stationed in Lybia. Every other sane nation pulled their people from a clearly dangerous situation. After using US force to overthrow the Lybian govt. and choose the successor, it was even more embarrassing that we created a lawless place instead of bringing moderate friendly people to power.

 

[MARIS61]

Nobody should have been stationed in Lybia. Every other sane nation pulled their people from a clearly dangerous situation. After using US force to overthrow the Lybian govt. and choose the successor, it was even more embarrassing that we created a lawless place instead of bringing moderate friendly people to power.

Moderate friendly people? In Libya? Are you suggesting we forcibly move them all from some other nation?

 

[Denny Crane]

Moderate friendly people? In Libya? Are you suggesting we forcibly move them all from some other nation?

No. I suggest we should have never gotten involved in the first place. It was none of our business.