The Plame case

I won't let myself get excited about the rumors over Dark Lord Dick Cheney until I see the perp walk.  Or at least the news of the indictment.

But the outing of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent could wind up rivaling Watergate and Iran-Contra.  Given the cesspool of lies, corruption and dirty business of which it's a part, it could turn out much bigger.

So, before the deluge of details now starting to hit the press leaves us all gasping for breath, I'm trying to define an overall approach to this scandal to keep my head straight.  Here are some of my thoughts at this point.

First, the name of the scandal.  Some bloggers are calling it TreasonGate.  And I don't object to the name.  It's likely that no one will be technically charged under treason statutes.  But the leaking of Plame's name under these circumstances does constitute treason in the normal usage of the word.  Even more serious was the leaking of top-secret "signals" information to Iran through Ahmad Chalabi's "Iraqi National Council." If the pus-filled sore that is the Plame scandal gets lanced open, the revelations could eventually force prosecutions on the signals intelligence leak, as well.

I'm avoid using the "TreasonGate" label myself, more as a matter of taste than anything.  Treason is one of the very worst accusations that can be made against a person.  And the fact that with the encouragement of Karl Rove and his minions, Republican war supporters routinely level that accusation against critics of Bush's war policies is a true obscenity.  I don't want to encourage the practice.

But just because the charge is misused by sleazebags like Rove doesn't mean that treason never happens.  And those are two cases (Plame and signals-intelligence leaks) where it did.

But for now, I'm going to use alternatives like "the Plame scandal" or other alternatives to "TreasonGate."

Indictments by Patrick Fitzgerald's office are not certain.  If Fitzgerald releases only a no-prosecute report, that won't make the scandal go away.  But absent the kind of legal coercion a criminal trial brings to bear, a lot of the story is likely to remain hidden.  Or at least  very murky.

And if there are indictments, no matter how much a man of integrity Fitzgerald is, the Republicans will try to destroy him.  Going after a President, a Vice President or senior members of their staff is going to provoke a major political fight, no matter how justified the charges are.

This story gives Democrats the chance to strike a public posture of defending the CIA in their legitimate intelligence operations.  Politics is politics, so the Dems should take full advantage of the chance, of course.  But the CIA in the real world does not equal the "good guys" we see on Alias. (Actually, they do some pretty nasty things; but that's fiction.) The CIA is an agency with strengths and weaknesses. And it always needs critical press and Congressional scrutiny.

We know that the "operations" side of the CIA has been involved in missions over the years that were not all well-advised.  In the current torture scandals, we also know that the CIA has practiced rendition, i.e., outsourcing of torture to other countries like Syria and Egypt.  The Agency's role in the torture performed in the Bush Gulag is unclear, though they have very likely been involved.  Many of the reports from soldiers who were torturers or witnesses to torture have referred to the presence of OGAs, people from "other governmental agencies," which were probably CIA in some cases.

This is not a matter of being "pro-CIA" or "anti-CIA".  We need a professional and effective intelligence agency.  And we need one that avoids destructive and illegal conduct.  Note to trolls: spying sometimes involves breaking the laws of other nations; the CIA is still governed by American law, much as the Bush dynasty may dislike the fact.

From everything we know about the outing of Valerie Plame, it was done for political vindictiveness, not to expose illegal conduct.  And, as such, the act was both illegal and immoral.  (And, yes, treasonous.)  But that doesn't mean that it would be wrong under any and all circumstances for the press to expose illegal operations by the CIA.  The fact that exposing secrets in this case was egregiously wrong doesn't mean we should assume that the CIA will handle its secrecy responsibly in all circumstances.

It's also important to keep in mand that this crime was committed in defense of the falsehoods about WMDs that were used to justify the Iraq War.  Plame was outed in retaliation for her husband's telling a story that undercut the credibility of the most potent of the administration claims, the charge that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

If justice were done, all those who knowingly falsified the case for war to Congress would be prosecuted.  Because that is a crime.  If the Republican Congress actually believed in the war resolution they passed in 2002, they would have already impeached and removed Bush and Cheney from office.  If some individuals are charged in the Plame case, they won't be charge with war crimes.  But Fitzpatricks' investigation and any future prosecution is very much the consequence of the lying used to justify the Iraq War.

As important as protecting the safety of undercover intelligence operatives unquestionably is, that's not the most important thing at stake in this case.  Lying to Congress to justify a preventive war is the real issue.  Morally speaking, the lies themselves were far more serious than the crimes committed to cover up the lies, i.e., outing Plame, because they resulted in the disastrous and completely avoidable Iraq War.

Finally, Judith Miller and the New York Times are not the "good guys", either.  Miller and her paper irresponsibly pimped false stories about the nonexistent Iraqi WMDs.  Miller seems to have acted almost as a Pentagon operative in this whole business.  I wouldn't argue that there aren't complicated questions about press freedom involved.  There are.  But if a news organization allows itself to be penetrated and used as a transmission point for a Pentagon disinformation campaign, either consciously or out of carelessness, it doesn't seem right for them to be able to hide any illegal actions involved behind the freedom of the press.

But, as with all these cases, "the devil is in the details."  Although I doubt the ability of the Republican Congress to pass a decent one, we need a federal shield law for reporters to define more specifically what reporters can legally do to protect sources.

There are also serious ethical question for the press.  Relying on anonymous sources for partisan spin points, for instance, makes a mockery of confidentiality arrangements.  News organizations should minimize the practice, or better yet, eliminate it altogether.

Even more seriously, when a confidential source lies to a reporter about something as important as Miller's WMD stories, under current assumptions the report's confidentiality pledge is considered nullified.  But in practice, reporters rarely burn (expose) sources whose information is proven false.  In cases like Miller WMD fairy tales, it should be considered an ethical obligation to burn the sources who lied.

For hardball takes on General Judy, see the FireDogLake blog.  Others have had harsh words for her, as well.