L.A. Times Publishes Personal Details About Covert CIA Agents
James Taranto reports on an article in the Los Angeles Times which provides extensive detail about CIA covert agents:
The Los Angeles Times boasts that it has identified three CIA pilots who are facing kidnapping charges in Germany over a 2003 counterterrorism operation there:
The names they used were all aliases, but The Times confirmed their real identities from government databases and visited their homes this month after a German court in January ordered the arrest of the three “ghost pilots” and 10 other alleged members of the CIA’s special renditions unit on charges of kidnapping and causing serious bodily harm to Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, three years ago.
None of the pilots responded to repeated requests for comment left with family members and on their home telephones. The Times is not publishing their real names because they have been charged only under their aliases.
But it does offer plenty of details about them:
In real life, the chief pilot is 52, drives a Toyota Previa minivan and keeps a collection of model trains in a glass display case near a large bubbling aquarium in his living room. Federal aviation records show he is rated to fly seven kinds of aircraft as long as he wears his glasses. . . .
His copilot, who used the alias Fain, is a bearded man of 35 who lives with his father and two dogs in a separate subdivision. . . .
The third pilot, who used the alias Bird, is 46, drives a Ford Explorer and has a 17-foot aluminum fishing boat. Certified as a flight instructor, he keeps plastic models of his favorite planes mounted by the fireplace in his living room in a house that backs onto a private golf course here [in a town of 13,000 the Times identifies in its dateline].
Remember all the outrage when Robert Novak “outed” Valerie Plame, who apparently worked a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.? Here the L.A. Times is publishing extensive personal details on three men who have actually done dangerous work defending the country. Where’s the outrage?
Lovely.
UPDATE: Lorie Byrd lives in the area and says:
I am familiar enough with this part of North Carolina to know that it would not take a genius to locate these men (particularly the third pilot) and their families. These men were using aliases for a reason. The L.A. Times did not provide Google Maps to their homes, but they did give anyone who wanted to track these men down, a real jump on locating them.
Speaking of the Wilson/Plame affair, the L.A. Times is fudging claims about what Bush said in those famous “sixteen words” in the 2003 SOTU. Details here.
UPDATE x2: A commenter says that, according to the story, the pilots may be simply contractors. This ignores the fact that they were flying covert missions for the CIA. The story puts them at risk whether they are official employees, non-official cover employees, or simply contractors flying covert missions.
I’m sure Patrick Fitzgerald will get right on this one.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:19 pmI hear Tim Russert will open next Sunday’s “Meet the Press” with this story.
As you can see, the outrage among the usual lefty commenters here is…non-existent !
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:41 pmThe outrage is there, outside of the media.
herzhonour (255642) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:51 pmIt’s time this old crap of outing classified
data and exposing REAL covert agents came back
to bite those who are treasonous in the butt.
They have NO idea what will blow up in their faces
if any of these agents or their families are exposed to assaults, attacks, injury or death because of exposing them during a time of war.
The law needs to land on everyone who is complicit
like a ton of bricks. And whoever is leaking this
info from within the CIA needs to face the full
extreme prejudice of the law.
If it were me (being a CIA Operative) the person who wrote that report would show up to work with a tattoo of L.A. TIMES across his/her forhead…get the picture???
Sometime in the near future this has to stop and I can’t wait for that one operative to just pull a Rocky and Bullwinkle out of his hat and do something that will get the message out to all media…’just don’t do it!’
TekMann (ee074f) — 2/21/2007 @ 7:16 pmThe silence is deafening.
JammieWearingFool (4205b1) — 2/21/2007 @ 7:18 pmSo here we have an actual case of CIA operatives (not analysts, who’s identity is public knowledge anyways) having details of their identiy ‘leaked’, which IS a violation of law, and a breach of national security.
Where’s the outrage? Oh, that’s right, this can’t be used against Bush. No story here. National security is only important when it furthers the anti-war movement. (Anti-war/National security, those are two opposing goals anyways.) The war on Bush is Job #1, the war on terrorism is dead. Protecting America is *so* 2001.
If this country will not wake up before the next major terrorist attack, then it will be forced to wake up after.
Eric Walker (8ccf19) — 2/21/2007 @ 7:24 pmWill someone PLEASE print this out and mail to the Judge in the Scooter Libby case?
Daniel McAndrew (958077) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:12 pmSo Joe Wilson managed to piss off the LA Times too?
Psyberian (de47c4) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:23 pmThis is not good, especially for those agents and their families.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:24 pmThe LA Times slanting towards liberalism and hypocracy?
The duece you say…
The liberal media only reports news that it is spoon fed by their likeminded sources and investigates news only when it dove tails with their beliefs…
I suggest these pilots bring a suit against the LA times.
GenFX (61ee1d) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:29 pmBush’s justice department, fresh from capitulating to Sandy Pants Berger, will do nothing about it and the LA Times knows it.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:30 pmLA Times jeopardizes CIA operatives…
L.A. Times Publishes Personal Details About Covert CIA Agents Patterico (H/T: Michelle Malkin) James Taranto reports on an article in the Los Angeles Times which provides extensive detail about CIA covert agents:The Los Angeles Times boasts that it has…
Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:32 pmThere will be repercussions but not from our feeble courts. Spooks have been getting sold out since the beginning of the Nation. The repercussions are never from them or by their hand. It has been by our enemies….enemies who don’t care what our plicies are.
Get your homes and families squared away and be ready.
Bear 1909 (686801) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:36 pmyou guys have been drinking too much of that Kool aid and watching too much of that show 24.
John Ryan (dd3d89) — 2/21/2007 @ 9:59 pmUnbelievable. THIS IS A MAJOR FEDERAL CRIME and these asshat journos keep getting away with it! They are intentionally exposing agents identities, and in doing so endangering the lives of these agents (and their families), ruining their careers, and wasting huge amounts of taxpayer funding that was spent training these agents for covert operations.
Why are these journos and editors not being held accountable?
They are clearly breaking federal law, and in the process making themselves complicit in terrorist activities, thus they should be subject to terrorist status and treatment. Yet the nimrods that could do something about this sit on their asses and do nothing – I guess they’re too busy doing important stuff like accosting innocent old ladies at TSA checkpoints while thousands of potential terrorists cross the borders unheeded.
If I was in a similar position as one of these agents, sure I’d be highly pissed at the journos, but I’d also be pissed at the eggheads at the top for doing nothing about it.
It seems treason is no longer a crime in the US, but gawd help you if you feed pigeons in certain parts of Central Park, sit on an old milk crate in Manhattan, or have too many words on your shop awning (I’m not joking).
Heck, if your own government won’t protect you, then why the hell would you, as an agent, put your life on the line for this country? I’ll tell you why: because these agaents still believe in this country, something that the journos and politicians clearly do not.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/21/2007 @ 10:02 pmI agree on one thing. The head of the Justice Department should be sent back to Cuba or Mexico, wherever he came from. He sure isn’t interested in anything American or for that fact any justice. He’s the most enept idiot to ever hold an appointed office. I guess when you appoint thousands of people a retard that fooled everyone pops up once in a while.
Scrapiron (686801) — 2/21/2007 @ 10:16 pmAG AG comes from Texas. But I agree that he is a big disappointment. He has not been able to fill John Ashcroft’s shoes.
nk (79f144) — 2/21/2007 @ 10:29 pmWhere is actus when you need him to bring his inimitable moral clairity to a topic like this?
EFG (6fb895) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:32 am[…] PP reports the LA Times published personal details of covert CIA agents. This is interesting in light of the non-issue the Plame trial actually represents. It seems the MSM just cannot get over its hate-those-who-protect-us syndrome. […]
swordpentrumpet.com » LA Times Jeopardizes CIA Operatives? (62d259) — 2/22/2007 @ 2:14 amThe LAT has had 2 standards for “reporting” since the Communist from the Farm took over 45 years ago. Being owned by the Trib has not changed their bigotry. May have in fact reinforced it.
Rodney A Stanton (0f94cc) — 2/22/2007 @ 5:06 amCompare this with the “Libby reporting” of the last 3 years!#@!%
Aren’t they already out if the information is from databases?
marc (dfd808) — 2/22/2007 @ 5:11 ammarc – your post was the only sane one on this thread. No one was outed – no names, just desciptions of their car and/or neighborhood.
If this means they are outed, then all the dummies above should go out and find their personal info. If successful, then report back here. If not, then I guess the LA Times didn’t out them, did they?
Again, LA Times took this info from publically available databases. There was nothing “outed.”
Rusty (fdd948) — 2/22/2007 @ 6:14 amSo, marc and Rusty — you had no issues with the “outing” of Valerie Plame?
Robert Crawford (aa888e) — 2/22/2007 @ 6:59 amAs a consideration…. What a lot of people do not realize is the extensive ‘internal’ damage that is caused to the intelligence community by exposing an undercover agent. So, for example, we are given the pilots alias names; there is certainly an employer that is attached to that alias. If the LA Times can find this information in databases, then we must assume that our enemy can do the same. By logical deduction, are other employees of that company also in the employment of the CIA? As a foreign government or terrorist group, what if I find that other people under that same shell company have entered my country; in fact, employees of that shell company have met with top-level diplomats of my country or members in my organization.. do I then assume that my diplomat (or terrorist cell member) has been flipped and is now a spy for the CIA? To be safe, the agency (CIA, NSA, or whomever is running the undercover agent) has to close the cover company/alias in such a way that no operation (past or present) is put in danger of being exposed… that is quite a costly endeavor. And who pays for all this? Well, the taxes of the reporter from the LA times, for one….
My point is this: exposing an undercover office does more than just ruin his career and put HIS life in danger; it causes SIGNIFICANT damage to our operations and the lives of an unknown number of others who are still under cover. The CIA is not going to come out and say “oh, yeah, you caught us.. hand in the cookie jar..” This is not some Tom Clancy novel where the good guys always win… this is real life, and sometimes the good people get dead! The stars on the wall of the CIA are not just a nice decoration to make people feel all warm and fuzzy.
The public has a right to know what the government is doing to protect it’s citizens; no argument there. However, in order to do it’s job effectively there are some things that need to stay out of the public spotlight… names/aliases/cover employment is one of those things. I will close my comment with a quote by the current director of CIA, Michael Hayden “In order to protect American lives and liberties, [CIA, NSA, et al] has to be two things: powerful in its capabilities, and secretive in its methods. And we exist in a political culture that distrusts two things most of all: power and secrecy.” (Jan 23, 2006 – Washington DC Press Club)
Mike (290579) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:00 amthis was no outing, as noted above, the information was in publicly available databases.
assistant devil's advocate (fbb4a4) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:10 amthe administration outed valerie plame to embarrass her husband, and provide political cover. there doesn’t seem to be any specific political motivation for the times story.
the real hypocrisy lies with the people who were comfortable with the plame outing, who did not feel that any administration officials should be punished, but who are now waxing wroth at the l.a. times. thanks for the laugh!
Right back at ya.
kl (15574e) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:18 amWith regards to this not “not being an outing… the information was in publicly available databases”. The point is not that the information was available in databases; rather, someone connected these dots and thought it was acceptable to publish the information in a newspaper for all to know.
Information being contained in databases is a fact of life these days… you can’t go to a grocery store, fill up your car with gas, or surf the internet without some electronic trail of information.
In point of fact, would it not be odd if you googled the alias name and the results came back as “no results found”? Everyone has at least 1 result on google… If you recall, there was a story last year (not sure if it was proven true) where a CIA officer was zapped by the Italian government becuase he used a frequent flier card and they tracked his travel arrangements… when have you met an international business man who does not use frequent flier miles?
Ultimately, no cover will last forever…. as the example above shows, if you are in the intelligence business long enough, chances are you will get zapped (or at least suspected). But nothing good can come from the LA Times or any other newspaper blantantly publishing this information.
Mike (290579) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:41 amPlame was not a Covert Agent so there was no crime. These operatives are Covert Agents so there is a crime. That is how simple this is. We are in a State of War. The courts have acknowledged that. Treason is not an impossible charge. Civil actions to bankrupt the employees of the LA Times would be appropriate.
lifeofthemind (fa93c2) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:46 am“If it were me (being a CIA Operative) the person who wrote that report would show up to work with a tattoo of L.A. TIMES across his/her forhead…get the picture???”
-TekMann
We need more testosterone-saturated manly-men like you in the world.
*I* think that you should go tattoo those sissy bastards anyway, just for the principle of the thing.
Idiot.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:59 amPlame wasn’t covert?
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:02 amYou’re trying to use Wikipedia to prove she was?
kl (15574e) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:36 amQuoting Wikipedia is like quoting the Zagats guide to prove a point of law. It may have useful links, like this place may, but it is just a blog. It is a collection of opinions, many of which are wrong.
lifeofthemind (fa93c2) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:43 am“No one was outed – no names, just desciptions of their car and/or neighborhood.” etc etc
What a crock of sh*t – that is the most obtuse statement I’ve seen here yet. Use your brains for a moment: in order to get that info in the first place, the journalist had to know who they were looking for. They knew the name but couldn’t publish it, so they worked backwards to obtain identifying info about the persons from public databases and then publish that instead, in order to avoid publishing the physical name.
Now that the journalist has provided this info, it would be quite simple to find out who the person really is – particularly in the case of the small town resident. It would not be easy at all without that info, and the fact that the info itself was available on public databases is meaningless – standing on its own, in no way would that info ‘out’ these agents unless you knew already that the public information belonged to an agent. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
In providing this info, the journalists and editors have clearly have identified or ‘outed’ these agents – you could not just ‘obtain this info from public databases’ as Marc and Rusty obtusely suggest without first knowing who you were looking for. The attempt to obtusely claim otherwise is only one of two things: an intention to cloud the issue, or ignorant stupidity.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:47 amBTW Marc and Rusty – freedom of the press does not mean journalists are above the law. Yes they are free to publish that info if they choose to, but the law states that publicly identifying an agent is a federal crime, and the fact the person revealing that information is a journalist is completely irrelevant. I’m aware people such as yourselves love to point accusing fingers and claim self-righteously that any prosecution is oppression of the media, but the fact is they broke the law and they should be prosecuted for it, regardless of their occupation. It’s pretty straight forward. If it was some extremist terrorist sympathizer publishing this info, would you defend them for doing it? Of course you wouldn’t. The crime is the act of committing it, the rest is immaterial.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:15 am“You’re trying to use Wikipedia to prove she was?”
-kl
You think Wikipedia has some stake in falsely declaring Plame a covert agent?
I realize that linking to Wikipedia isn’t the same as linking to a primary source. Whatever. I don’t give a shit. I’ve already argued this point extensively in past threads (“this point” being whether or not the outing of Plame was deliberate), and it really goes nowhere.
“[Wikipedia] is a collection of opinions, many of which are wrong.”
-lifeofthemind
I suppose I should just automatically assume that the opinion of the few (you guys) is superior to the opinion of the many (wikipedia). After all, your contents are continuously edited and updated by a crew of tightass webmasters.
Wait…
Leviticus (1daf74) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:21 amWhile I agree with kl and lifeofthemind that wikipedia is not a definitive source of factual information; allow me to clarify a few definitions?
Realize there is a distinct difference between clandestine, covert, and being a field operative. A covert action appears to be one thing, but in reality is something else. A clandestine action is one where no one witnesses the action. Cover is meant to preserve covert actions; that is, someone whose cover is an international businessman needs to appear in every way that they are traveling over seas to sell bathroom tile or function in the same role stateside, but in reality they are an operative of the CIA. Cover gives someone a plausible reason for being there, a clandestine action places them alone, where no one is observing their actions, and they don’t need to lie about what they are doing. Not to blur the line between fact and fiction, but consider James Bond. When he introduces himself as a national geographic researcher (for example), he is operating under cover. He needs to appear in every way that that is what he does. When he sneaks into a gov facility at 2am, he is on a clandestine operation.
From my understanding, Plame was a covert officer; that is she appeared to be one thing but actually did something else. Even though she rode a desk, there is no difference between her and the guys of the LA times story. In both cases, they could not be identified as working for the CIA so they used a cover story. Thus, they have to live their cover at all times. We are told that Plame was an analyst now, but what was she doing 5 years ago? What would she have been doing 5 years from now? We don’t know. Maybe she was a field operative before transitioning to a desk job… now anyone that knew her in that field role 5 years ago will be suspect of having ties to the CIA.
If you are curious where I am getting this from, search amazon for books on intelligence. “Silent warfare”, “understanding terrorist networks”, “Gathering Intelligence in an Information Age”… in the last 5 years or so, the business of intelligence has become quite an academic pursuit or understanding social networking theory, information theory, and stategy. It’s much like playing a complicated game of chess.
Mike (290579) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:22 amPlame was covert.
Leviticus (1daf74) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:30 amLeviticus,
Wikipedia can be a great source of information, Though its a horrible source to use to prove something, as I’m sure you are aware that any person can edit it, and if you even look at the history of that page and see how many times thats been added/removed.
Anyway, there is NOTHING out there indicating that Plame was a covert agent and she did not meet the requirements to be a covert agent. She WAS a covert agent, in the 90’s. Not so in the 00’s.
Oh, Levi, don’t use Wiki as a source in any school papers that require a works cited page… (thought still good to visit for research and use the sources they have listed)
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:34 amDrop the Plame argument – bringing that up was a successful attempt to distract you from the current issue, which is the outing of agents by the L.A.Times.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:35 am“I suppose I should just automatically assume that the opinion of the few (you guys) is superior to the opinion of the many (wikipedia). After all, your contents are continuously edited and updated by a crew of tightass webmasters.”
Wait…
Comment by Leviticus
gotta love that mob rule mentality.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:40 amThe law is very specific on this. There are exact limits on what rises to the level of “Covert” as opposed to “classified” or “clandestine” and how long ago a person had to have acted in such a capacity to have their identity covered by the law. Remember that NO evidence was introduced that Plame was in fact a “Covert” agent, not even a letter from the CIA asserting that and asking the court not to reveal the reason in order to protect sources and methods.
Plame had been a Covert agent at one time but apparantly her identity was not protected by the law in question when Novak identified her as an Agency employee. Libby has been charged with not accurately revealing information as to who revealed the identity of a person that it was not illegal to identify, at least under the provisions of the law that was originally refered to. This is more jug headed than the Teapot Dome case which Robert Heinlein pointed out consisted of one man being found guilty of receiving a bribe another man was found innocent of offering, or was it the other way around?
lifeofthemind (fa93c2) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:40 amMike you do bring up a good point. But previously Plame’s travel records had indicated that her last overseas trip had passed the requirements to determine her as covert. So yeah, there is a pretty huge difference between three agents facing charges from a foreign government to a former covert agent who works now as an analyst.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:45 amDrop the Plame argument – that was a successful attempt to distract this thread of comments from the real issue, which is the outing of agents by the L.A.Times.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:49 amor do you not actually care, you just enjoy bickering?
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:50 amdemonsurfer
lifeofthemind (fa93c2) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:55 amI agree the Plame argument is a red herring. The curent action by the LAT is a whole level more serious.
G: How many times have I said that I KNOW that Wikipedia isn’t substantive, not in terms of primary sources?
I’ll say it again: I KNOW.
Accordingly, I KNOW not to use Wikipedia in work-cited papers, *thank you very much*.
Wikipedia is still a great resource, and I will continue to link to it because I am lazy.
When my Wiki-citation is (duly) challenged, I will sigh inwardly and go out to look for real sources (like the three I recently posted).
Now, leave me alone before I start to cry.
Leviticus (1daf74) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:55 am“After all, your contents are continuously edited and updated by a crew of
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:57 amtightasswebmastersanybody who knows how to type.”I can’t believe you guys don’t see the parallel between Plame and the actions of the LA Times.
It’s not “a red herring”; it’s THE SAME FUCKING SITUATION, and I’ll condemn it now the same way I condemned it before.
Will you do the same, in reverse?
Leviticus (1daf74) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:58 amG: Go to wikipedia and edit Bush’s file to say that he has a superfluous third nipple.
I guarantee you that it will get axed within one hour.
Leviticus (1daf74) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:01 amWe’ve noticed.
kl (15574e) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:05 amhey, just giving advice. Look, if you KNEW that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source, why use it?
Honestly I do like to use wikipedia, just depends on the controversy behind the subject, but if its a “hot” topic than you really can’t use it. Anyway as with the other “sources”
the first one: “Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge’s opinion.”
The second link insists that due to her name being marked “S” that she was covert. (I think we all know that it takes more than that)
And as for the third, I fail to see anything of note that proves she’s covert.
Look, face the facts. Plame was outted by a Armitage, who is a known critic. Who obviously had no malicious intent in the matter. This is a media driven story which has led to the biggest non story ever.
Honestly, if she was covert… wouldn’t somebody be charged with outing her?
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:08 am“I guarantee you that it will get axed within one hour.”
Oh, i’m betting on 3 minutes. I’m very familiar with wikipedia. The real catch though is… will the page be the same at the time you linked it? Maybe… maybe not.
Thats the whole point, the edit wars. They go on forever, the people who wish to keep things in that aren’t proven simply create a new page to put forth their own agenda.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:12 am“the administration outed valerie plame to embarrass her husband, and provide political cover” – assistant devil’s advocate
The original story attempted to bolster Wilson’s credibility in his NY Times piece by portraying him as having been sent to Niger by Cheney. As a result, Cheney’s criticism was portrayed as contradicting the findings of his own expert. The exposure of Plame as being the source of Wilson’s assignment was Cheney’s way of saying, “Wilson’s not my expert, he was sent on a boondoggle by the CIA at his wife’s behest.” It was not punishment, it was setting straight whose “expert” Wilson was. And, by the way, Wilson was shown to be a liar. Read the 9/11 Report.
Whether or not these pilots were “covert” under the statute has not yet been shown. However, the LA Times reporter had to know he was putting them at risk. My surmise is that they WERE “covert” and the reporter’s mechanism of providing details without the actual name was his attempt to dance around the edge of legal liability for revealing a covert agent’s identity. If they are covert, I’d prosecute this reporter and the newspaper itself in a heartbeat.
wep (319048) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:21 amAre these guys even agents? The article makes it seem like they’re pilots for a charter airline, Aero Contractors. I’m sure the law has a specific definition of “covert agent,” but I don’t know if a contractor like this counts.
whitd (23c2b4) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:24 amWhitd are you trying to be cute or serious?
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:29 amWhitd needs to look up the definition of “covert”.
nk (79f144) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:40 amI don’t even see a need for debate here – it couldn’t be much more clear cut outside of actually stating the agents’ names. The only problem is that the justice department lack the testicular fortitude to do anything about it, most likely because they don’t want to offend the media – the media has so much influence over the masses, offending the media equates to negative publicity which equates to a lack of public support (because so many people still consider the media as reliably objective), and those in power don’t want to lose votes and thus their positions of power, so in the end the media can print pretty much anything they like without fear of consequences. It’s sad, and it all boils down to one motivator: greed.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:42 amnote: greed implies self-interest in this case.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:44 amObviously.
Darleen (543cb7) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:56 amOh i see, you guys think that working for Aero Contractors is their cover.
But they do that under their real names. And also, as part of Aero contractors, fly these missions. The article said their employer works for the CIA. Maybe the whole thing is a front. But that’s been exposed before, in 2005, at least according to wikipedia.
But still, why are we assuming that they are agents? Could they simply be contractors?
whitd (23c2b4) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:58 amYou know what.. it’s situations like this that make me consider voting for Giuliani come election time – he’s one of few that don’t care who the person is, if they’ve done wrong then he will make sure they are held accountable, without exception and regardless of how it may affect his popularity. It made him very unpopular with some very powerful people while he was mayor of NYC, but his uncompromising take-no-crap selfless attitude turned NYC around in a big way (and I’m not talking about post 911 either). Gotta respect that.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:58 amWhitd is clearly clueless.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:03 amThat appears to be a given.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:06 amPerhaps the idiots that committed treason by writing this and those who allowed it to be published will meet with an extremely unfortunate accident.
Brian (8f0ac2) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:06 ammaybe i’ll just change my name to captain obvious.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:10 amCaptain Conspicuous has a nice ring to it though, don’t you think?
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:15 amAnd let us not forget the NYT coverage of a CIA air operation, either.
ajacksonian (87eccd) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:16 amyeah, Captain Conspicuous does have a nice ring to it, but only if i can be covert.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:21 amLeviticus, what most people understand as “covert” is what the CIA refers to as “non-official cover.”
NOC does not apply to people who work a desk at CIAHQ in Langley.
McGehee (5664e1) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:22 amajack, thats the same company. So it seems as if the company has already been outed as CIA contractors.
whitd (913690) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:24 amThe company is a CIA company. The pilots are CIA covert agents.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:26 amnice one Captain 🙂
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:29 amI appears that you are claiming that since the airline is already an ‘outed’ CIA entity, identifying these agents is therefore not an ‘outing’ as they are already ‘outed’ by association. Your logic is flawed. That chain of ‘logic’ equates to saying that since we all know the CIA exists, it is therefore quite ok to name all the agents working for the CIA, since the agency itself is ‘outed’, so to speak. See where I’m going? Nice try, not. Your attempt to validate ‘outing’ the agents has failed dismally.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:39 amSo, who is this plame character I keep hearing about? 😉 wait… I thought we were talking about the guys from LA?
Mike (290579) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:44 amNo, it wasn’t plame, it was plane, as in aircraft, as in aircraft pilots, as in aircraft pilots identities revealed, as in some asshats should be doing serious jail time for outing them.. plame was just a typo, I’m sure.. 🙂
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:48 amah, demonsurfer, thanks for the clarification… I was getting a little confused as to which story we were actually discussing! 🙂
So how about those Yankees? Are they undercover CIA agents too? I’ve always thought there was something fishy about Derek Jeter….
Mike (290579) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:51 amKGB I heard..
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:54 amwhitd – Correct. The LA Times is *reminding* people of it and pointing it out *again*. I cannot adjudge intent, but doing such on a repeated basis is not helpful to the Nation as a whole… unless the CIA took heed the first time and keeps this operation going for other things. Then I can see it being quite helpful in identifying leaks and such.
ajacksonian (87eccd) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:00 pmThe logic is that outing a CIA company outs everyone who we can, from non secret sources, determine works in that company. This was raised by some people when Plame was supposedly outed, because it also outed everyone who had worked in her same cover company.
So when the LA times looks at government databases and learns who works for this company, they’re not finding out anything secret. The secret is over.
whitd (2c66cc) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:07 pmHmm.. here’s a thought.. perhaps the L.A.Times have misidentified the pilots, so the Justice Dept is doing nothing because no agents have actually been identified.. however if that is the case, the individuals who have been incorrectly identified as CIA agents have a very good reason to seek a lawyer.. either way, L.A.Times should be screwed for what they have done.. altho should and will be are two very different things..
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:11 pmWhitd – you are overlooking the fact that they were employed under aliases, not under their real identities.. BIG difference.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:14 pm“The secret is over.”
I’m guessing you haven’t read, or do not care about the law in place to protect the covert agents. Also maybe it was stated but i didn’t see it… But didn’t the LA Times say that they weren’t revealing their real names because they were charged under their aliases? Were their real names in the database or were the fake names… Captain James Kirk ftw!
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:17 pmthe article does not say they were employed under their aliases. just that they flew that way and were charged that way.
whitd (891a6e) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:24 pmWow. Demonsurfer has it figured out – there’s no arguing with his logic, intelligence or opinions.
Tell me, why is such a talented and smart individual like yourself loitering around blogs. You should be running the country. Of course, you’d have to wear a suit, not dorito-stained flannel pajamas. And your mom can’t interrupt official business or press conferences to bring you spaghetti-os.
While you attempt to get your panties untwisted, realize that LA Times outed no one. If they did, I’m sure you’ll be able to provide names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. for those individuals. If you can’t, then they aren’t outed.
Case closed.
Also, if you’re so freakin’ concerned about outing covert agents and the CIA-backed companies affiliated with them, you should be infuriated at the Plame scandal. If not for Plame, but for Brewster Jennings – her front company involved in spying against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Kind of germaine these days, no?
Fact is, you really don’t care. All you care about is the liberal media. You don’t give a whit about anything else.
You know, getting laid every now and then can take the edge off. Try it some time.
Rusty (fdd948) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:39 pmawwww widdle Wusty doesn’t like being revealed as ignorant and obtuse.. don’t cry little fellah, you’ll survive, and maybe one day you’ll develop some common sense too! Typical reaction though, when clearly proven wrong by the most simple logic, you bring all sorts of other issues in (once again) to try and distract from the issue at hand, and then add personal insults and utterly unfounded stereotypes on top of it. Pathetic, and completely transparent. You have only served to illustrate what a bigoted and ignorant ass you are.
Gotta love the ‘case closed’ bit too – really made me laugh, thanks. 🙂
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:49 pmCant you just smell how bad the SMEEL A TIMES stinks i mean its amercas PRAVDA its the west coats NYTs
krazy kagu (2f4b46) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:52 pm[…] While the Leftards are spending night and day hyping the Scooter Libby non-outing of a non-covert non-agent as if it was the worst and most despicable act of treason since Benedict Arnold, the L.A. Slimebucket is nonchalantly outing three real covert agents. […]
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » L.A. Times Outs ACTUAL Covert CIA Agents (f6e59f) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:04 pmStill can’t answer the questions, eh Demonsurfer? I guess you figured with such a cool handle and throwing out the word “logic” fifty times would be enough to intimidate anyone from questioning you.
Listen up: I’m not your beehive-wearing mother. I don’t quiver every time you shout. And I don’t yell at you for getting crumbs all over the floor.
If you get out of the basement, away from the mold and artificial ligt, and into the real world, you’ll see this is nothing but a mountain out of a mole hill.
Seriously, you’re comparing this to publishing the full legal name of a covert CIA agent? You’re such a dumb tool it’s funny.
No wonder you don’t have a real job. Unless tossing Patterico’s salad actually pays.
Rusty (fdd948) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:07 pmLet me get this right – with no information whatsoever, you have the remarkable ability to conclude I live in a basement, don’t have a real job, have a mother who wears a beehive, drop crumbs on the floor, wear dorito-stained flannel pajamas and never get laid. All that, yet SOMEHOW you find it impossible to believe that the identity of an individual could not be discovered given the information that the individual (to use just one of the cases) lives in a house that backs onto a private golf course in a named small town of only 13,000 residents, is aged 46, drives a Ford Explorer and has a 17-foot aluminum fishing boat and is a certified flight instructor. The reason I didn’t answer your questions is that it seemed pretty damned obvious how easy it would be to obtain this individual’s identity.. I guess, in your case, I overestimated your intelligence, which completely surprises me.
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:23 pmthe “certified flight instructor” bit is a little too much info to put out there. IMO… put that info all together and I bet it would take very little time to find out who this person is. Horrible.
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:27 pmDemonsurfer – well, first, I’d have to find a town with the exact population of 13,000 (unless the reporter was rounding, in which case my search just got harder). Then, I have to drive around and find the golf course community(s). Then, I have to find all the houses that back to the course in some way. Then, I have to peek in the garage and find a Ford Explorer (of course, if there are two or more, I’m SOL). Then, hope that the boat is parked out back, instead of at the lake.
With that in hand, I can then assume I’ve found the secret agent. Of course, the reporter could have fudged some details.
Yeah, that’s totally on par with Libby blabbing the full legal name of Plame to a reporter.
In your case, there’s still substantial digging to be done.
In mine, the info is provided on a silver platter.
Yeah, your logic is amazing.
I know why your pissed: most neo-cons are kicking themselves that Franklin outed Brewster Jennings, which was providing valuable intel on Iranian WMD efforts. This was needed since no one was going to trust Chalabi and all the other stooges who fed us the Iraqi WMD bullshit.
Go back to your fantasy online video games and leave the adult matters to the adults.
Remember, no matter what your buddies tell you, you’re still a virgin even if your D&D character gets laid.
Rusty (fdd948) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:30 pm#4, #29
Tattoo, hell! I say that we brand it into their scrawny asses. A great big “T” for traitor.
It’s time to start hunting traitors as a sport. Of course, the LA Times, New York Times and Washington Post offices are like hunting preserves in that respect.
Smokey Behr (5c66d7) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:37 pmRusty, just stop, you’re making a complete fool of yourself and I’m starting to feel embarrassed for you. First, go READ the article so you at least have some clue what you are talking about – the town was named, as stated in this very entry. If you can’t see how easy it is to figure the rest out then you have some serious intellectual issues, and no amount of spelling it out to you here is going to make a difference. As to your insults – you are only showing your immaturity and your inability to cope with reality, but I’ll avoid responding in kind – it must be terribly frustrating for you to be incapable of following even basic logic. I am saddened when I encounter such ignorance – I only hope you are as young as you seem – at least then there would be hope you’ll mature given time. I have work to do now, try not to take things too personally will you..
demonsurfer (a11b4a) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:49 pmOops. I forgot they named the city. And? I still proved it’s not easy to find the house of the agent. Nor did you disprove that the outing of Plame was much easier. You can’t disprove it, of course, but you’re also too full of yourself to admit it.
Second, you never conceded that outing Plame seriously hurt our intelligence efforts against Iran. Remember that when they start testing nuclear weapons.
I’m sure you have plenty of work to do. It must be tough mooching off your mom and having to fold some laundry every now and then. Lord knows you don’t have a real job. You have posted every 10 minutes all day. I can’t see any public or private employer allowing you to do that. Mommy, on the other hand…
Later, Demonsurfer. You’re one tough sonofabitch. Too bad you’re not out in Baghdad kicking tail, where we need you.
PS – don’t go to bars and brag about your logic or rant about the liberal media. Ladies really don’t dig that.
Rusty (fdd948) — 2/22/2007 @ 2:01 pmRusty, not too hard to find the house? How many private golf courses are there in that town?
Oh and this crap about Plame hurting intelligence efforts against Iran…
Uh what? How you figure?
G (722480) — 2/22/2007 @ 2:28 pmRusty:
You silly boy/girl. Someone reading the LA Times might just live in the area and recognize the location. Then, if per chance, they want to continue the mischief, they might just release the real name or names on the internet.
That Sir/Madam I would suggest, is why the slimes include so much geographic detail.
New name for the LA TImes – LA PRAVDA.
davod (5fdaa2) — 2/22/2007 @ 3:33 pmUnreal. The leakers are traitors–the LA Times may someday have blood on its hands.
Hockey Lady (f44f58) — 2/22/2007 @ 3:41 pm[…] Patterico has both instances covered, and darn if they both haven’t happened in less than a week. I’ve tuned out their, and everyone else’s coverage of the “Scooter” Libby trial until a verdict has come in, but I did see the CIA thing the other day but have been too overloaded to research and blog about it. Glad someone did. Thanks Patrick! […]
“Okie” on the Lam » The LA Times — Screwin’ Up — Again (e2cef7) — 2/22/2007 @ 4:18 pmUm, did any of you Einsteins realize that these pilots are NOT CIA employees, much less covert agents or NOCs?
They are contractors. They are not afforded the same priviledges as CIA agents.
Tits McGee (2d0f25) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:11 pmFirst off, for the record, I dislike not being able to post from work… It hurts my feelings, Mr. P
Second, Rusty… You seem unable to wrap yourself around this single fact: Plame was NOT a covert agent. She may have been at one time, but the timeframe was such that her identity was no longer held as “protected”. Even if it were, no one from the White House outted her. Her HUSBAND used to tell people that she was a spook, for God’s sake… The worst Libby did was lie about who leaked her name, and since he isn’t the one that outted her, and isn’t the one that told the reported that outted her and he didn’t order her outted, HE WOULDN’T KNOW ANYWAYS… I’m terribly sorry if that single, important fact escapes you.
And… Ummm… Oh hell
To Tits (i feel dirty already), you do realize that back in the day of the U2 spy plane, it was the CIA’s civilian pilots that flew the missions over Russia, right? You think that the CIA has a payroll dept for “Undercover Operatives”? Of cource they are listed as not being employed in any way by the CIA. It defeats the purpose of them being undercover of No Official Cover if they are actively paid by – and listed on employment rosters for – the CIA. If I were the CIA i wouldn’t even pay them in US Dollars. I’d pay them in Euros or something…
When someone claims to be undercover, and is listed as a direct employee of the CIA, they probably aren’t, just like how the kid from the NSA that told you he was a spy is most likely a janitor…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:31 pmCIA’s civilian pilots that flew the missions over Russia, right?
Civilian pilots? As opposed to their military ones?
You think that the CIA has a payroll dept for “Undercover Operatives”?
No. But they do have a payroll department handling contractors. They hire contractors all the time: they do janitorial work, systems integration, facilities management, etc.
It defeats the purpose of them being undercover of No Official Cover if they are actively paid by – and listed on employment rosters for – the CIA.
Don’t mix up NOCs and covert agents – of which these pilots were neither. NOCs don’t get paid by the CIA, or the US government at all. They are usually paid by the entity they work for – that’s the whole point. They are deep-cover spies. Covert agents are rotated in and out of CIAHQ (like Plame) and usually are under the DO, not DI. They are on CIA rosters, but not employment rolls. They are protected.
These pilots were paid by the CIA to fly missions, but were not CIA employees, nor covert agents.
Tits McGee (2d0f25) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:36 amGerman justice officials (who are quick to release / excuse jihadist terrorists who plot to mass-murder civilian infidels) are trying to find and arrest these American pilots who helped remove terrorists from circulation. Publishing details that would help our supposed EU ally to try Americans during wartime, before Al Qaeda and Putin and other worldly enemies of liberty/life/America/Israel, is unacceptable.
patrick.j.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov
hmm (430f74) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:46 amThe pilots they’re trying to find didn’t remove a terrorist. They kidnapped an innocent person. But maybe you know about some secret.
whitd (4decbd) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:46 amunbelieavle that their able to print that type of information
ed (3b53ff) — 2/24/2007 @ 11:00 am