I’m really surprised by Mr. Baer’s comments, especially because his tone seemed quite different when he appeared on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on CNN just last Sunday, (October 5th). The preliminary transcript is available at:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/05/le.00.html

... and the relevant excerpts are about 80% of the way down:

---------------

BLITZER: Bob Baer, you once worked undercover. You were a clandestine case officer for the CIA. What does this case say to you?

BOB BAER, FORMER CIA AGENT: Well, it says a lot of things to me. I agree with Jim Woolsey. He's absolutely right. This hurts national security, not only compromising the operations this woman might have been involved in, but more than that, the CIA, especially today, needs to go over and work under what we call non-official cover, you know, for law firms or whatever in order to do their job, to find out information about weapons of mass destruction.

We are now sending a message to the people who provide that cover, you can't trust the CIA, or at least the White House.

... [Blitzer asks then question to former CIA director James Woolsey] ...

BLITZER: Bob Baer, you speak with lot of your former colleagues over at the CIA. This must have a pretty serious impact on morale and attitude. What have you been hearing?

BAER: It's demoralizing the ranks. What they're feeling is they're being -- the CIA is being politicized continually. It hasn't stopped. It occurred under the Clinton administration. It's happening today.

And it frankly gets in the way of the job, and people are beginning to wonder exactly what the administration's position or whoever leaked this is, vis-a-vis the CIA. And it's making the job more difficult. It's already dangerous enough. So it's demoralized the place.

... [Blitzer plays clip of Novak on Crossfire. Asks another question of Woolsey]...

BLITZER: Last word from you, briefly, Bob Baer. What do you want to happen right now?

BAER: I want some accountability on this, find out who did it, and this has got to stop. And I think it would really help the CIA to identify somebody and get the agreement of the journalists and the politicians to quit messing around in intelligence.

---------------------

I’d say he’s really changed his tune within 24 hours. I wonder why? I doubt it was just to butter up Pat Robertson.

wmk -- wtf?

Is it the the same person, or is it the memory hole?

Regardless if outing Valerie Plame violated the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982", it definitly violated the "Espionage Act of 1917 as Amended." Ms. Plames status was prior to the leak Top Secret plus information. Only people with the appropriate level of clearance and a need to know should have had access to it. Violate either of those conditions, appropriate clearance level or need to know and you've violated the Espionage Act. Leaking this information to Novak, with out a doubt, violates both conditions.

Once upon a time, I had a DOD issued security clearance. Every year I had to sign a form that stated I understood that unauthorized release of classified information violated the Espionage Act, and that I would be, upon conviction, subject to up to 10 years in jail and or a $10,000 fine on up to being executed depending on the nature of the violation.

The people who outed Valerie Plame, upon conviction for violating the Espionage Act, can, and IMNSHO, should be given the death penalty. With any luck, Cheney and Rove face a one way ticket to old sparky.

Just to answer squiddy's question:

I'm somebody different, and in fact, I'm a first time poster at Billmon. (I was moved to post something since I liked very much both of Bob Baer's Books, _See No Evil_ and _Sleeping With the Devil_, and so it'd be quite depressing for me to see him become---or, perhaps more accurately, reveal his true colors as---a partisan hack.)

I don't know any "wtf", and I'm not affiliated with the fine people at www.thememoryhole.org (I'm a grad student at MIT who actually should be studying, but is instead currently procrastinating.)

Silly me.. I just realized what "wtf" is an acronym for and why you referenced the memory hole.

Yup, my sentiments exactly. I've got no clue.

Still another strange david brooks editorial.

I even agree with all of the talking points. But what's this weirdness about "writing a constitution in secret?"

Now that's plain weird. Where's the Iraqi Common Sense? Where is the Iraqi Madison's letters.

None of these will happen if the constitution is written in secret. So secret that no one even knows who's working on it!

"Anonymous sources in the Iraqi Constitutional Congress suggest that Kurdistan needs veto power on..." Huh?

Still, one can only hope he's right, and it's not more of the fact-free bloviation we're accustomed to from Brooks.

Off-topic, regarding the "4th estate":
Truthout

FOX is a scaremongering, hypemeistering piece of hype-addicted shit, and it's viewers probably aren't that smart anyway.

Off-topic, regarding the "4th estate":
Truthout

FOX is a scaremongering, spinmeistering piece of hype-addicted shit, and it's viewers probably aren't that smart anyway.

Sorry for double post with one word fix. And sorry for posting a sorry post. And sorry for being sorry. Aargh.
Now playing "Skaven - Cannon Angel"

Regardless if outing Valerie Plame violated the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982", it definitly violated the "Espionage Act of 1917 as Amended."
Uh, no. But it definitely was a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 - even if the people who outed her to Novak weren't cleared because someone who was cleared at some point would have had to out her to someone who wasn't (unless someone went digging for info and just somehow found this on their own, in which case I have no idea what or how many laws they broke).

Small correction, Billmon: Plame isn't an agent, she is (was?) an intelligence officer. Larry Johnson explained this on Democracy Now! last Thursday:
LARRY JOHNSON: ... To refer to Joe's wife as an agent, she's not an agent. Agents are people from other countries who are paid by the United States to betray their country; they're spies. Intelligence officers, case officers, run agents. Joe's wife is an intelligence officer not an agent.

Just to be rude:

I suppose I might as well use the pages as fire starters this winter, because his credibility just went down the toilet.

A writer once replied to an unfavorable reviewer, before toilet paper was a commodity and people commonly made do with other stuff, something along these lines:

I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me.

The few times I have seen Baer talk on CNN, I got a very creepy feeling from the man. I didn't trust him at all. He seemed very shifty, and he was certainly trying to be 'on message' and get across a particular agenda when he spoke. So I guess this wouldn't surprise me. Of course, in my book, even deigning to appear on Robertson's show would knock one down many notches. That man (Robertson) is vile. And he sure as hell ain't going to let you on his show unless you serve only to reafirm what Robertson 'knows' is already right.

Btw, I was driving down W. Colfax in Denver, and saw a little bar called Bill's Whiskey Bar, that made me smile and think of this web site.

So tell me, why dosn't it violate the Espionage act of 1917, as amended? I am unfamilliar with both of these so clarification would be great.

WARNING: Long post

WMD -
From the Secrecy News article (emphasis added):

But does the 1917 Espionage Act "forbid the unauthorized release of classified information"? Not exactly.

What it does do is prohibit disclosure of several narrowly defined categories of information -- having to do with codes, ciphers, and communications intelligence. It does not mention intelligence identities or many other diverse forms of classified information. See 18 USC 798 on "Disclosure of classified information" here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/798.html

The Espionage Act also prohibits under certain conditions the unauthorized disclosure of "defense information," which includes much, but far from all classified information. The one and only conviction of a leaker [of classified information] to the media, Samuel L. Morison, resulted from the compromise of such "defense information." See 18 USC 793 on "Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information" here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/793.html

As previously noted, Congress enacted a general provision to criminalize all leaks of any type of classified information in 2000, precisely because such a prohibition did not exist, notwithstanding the Morison precedent. But President Clinton vetoed it on November 4, 2000:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/wh110400.html

Consequently, it seems clear, there is no universal statutory prohibition in the Espionage Act or any other statute that "forbids the unauthorized release of classified information."

And from 18 USC 798:

(a)

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information -

(1)

concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2)

concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3)

concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4)

obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b)

As used in subsection (a) of this section -

[snip]

The term ''communication intelligence'' means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

In other words, 18 USC 798 only applies to signals intelligence (SigInt). Even if Valerie Plame worked SigInt (she almost certainly worked human intelligence), the statute wouldn't cover BushCo's treason - it only applies to "all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications."

18 USC 793 makes no mention of intelligence or undercover agents, and as far as I can tell deals strictly with exposing information about military hardware.

Once again, however, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421) fortunately does cover this. I should probably stop writing before this gets any longer. :-/

Regarding Toricelli, he was probably exempt from arrest for his disclosure in any case, at least while Congress was in session. Recall Art I, Section 6, 1st paragraph of the US constitution.

Uh, this sounds like Baer was leaned on - and heavily.

Noone writes an entire book in a non-partisan matter, gives non-partisan speeches etc and then changes his tune one morning.

Something mighty fish happened. I doubt it was him buttering Pat as Billmon pointed out, and I also doubt he was just catering the target of sales for his book.

This mighty curious and it'd be worth watching to see if Baer speaks again and what he has to say.

Out on a limb and probably dead wrong, but...
Denying Plame had any importance might be a very lame and bad attempt to make others, that is foreign services notably, that she wasn't useful, her front company wasn't important, and the people she worked with weren't part of agents network. Let's say, some (obviously doomed) much delayed damage control.

That's just my attempt to see why he could shift position that fast and that much without assuming he's a neo-con agent. Other possiblities can exist, notably that he is propagandising all along.

An analyst has access to more information than an agent. An analyst has lots of puzzle pieces. They're even better targets for those who may want to torture out information. There's no such thing as "just an analyst." And she apparently did go overseas and did have non-official cover, which, I'm learning, is more covert than regular cover and is actually pretty rare.

But regardless of what she is/was, "analyst" is no light matter. She wasn't the freaking lobby receptionist.

CluelessJoe -
If it was damage control, he wouldn't have made sure to expose her front company in the process.

Good lesson in why it is so important to figure out who the writer is before recommending -- much more difficult today with the unholy alliance of the rightwing "Christians," Neo-Cons, and old guard (anti-Semite)GOP. No telling how many factions are in the CIA today.

I haven't read the Baer book, but I did read the lengthy extract published in Atlantic monthly, and wasn't particularly impressed. Between the lurid stories about obscenely rich oil sheikhs bribing US politicians (credible) he threw in a lot of financial and oil market detail that was just nonsensical.

One example (and this is from memory, since Atlantic doesn't have the article online): Baer claims that the Saudis have us by the financial short hairs because they have "as much as" one trillion dollars deposited in US banks, and another trillion in the stock market.

Overlooking the weasel-phrase "as much as", consider what that much money amounts to. $1 tn is about one-sixth of M2 (sight and time deposits), and about 50% greater than US banks' TOTAL GROSS foreign liabilities. $1 tn in the stock market would be about 7% of TOTAL market capitalization.

The Saudis are cautious investors - I doubt that they've put all or even most of their assets in the US. And, of course, they have a lot of their money in non-financial assets (like those 50-room mansions Baer likes to describe).

TOTAL oil export revenues from Saudi Arabia for the period 1980 - 2000 come to $1.07 trillion. Sure, that's a lot of money, (about 10 years' occupation of Iraq on current trends!) but there is no other revenue source for the country. The government also pisses away a lot of its share on subsidies and transfers. So, where do these trillions and trillions of dollars come from?

I like verifiable facts, and I prefer arguments based on them. Baer strikes me as a tale-spinner, not an analyst. Some of his anecdotes are revealing, even important. But I don't think I can trust him.

I like verifiable facts, and I prefer arguments based on them. Baer strikes me as a tale-spinner, not an analyst. Some of his anecdotes are revealing, even important. But I don't think I can trust him.

Yep. It's important to be reminded every once in a while that just because someone (like Baer) says something you agree with, that doesn't make him/her a credible source.

I wouldn't have put so much stock in Sleeping With the Devil, if it hadn't jibed so well with what other writers -- including Arab writers -- are saying about the House of Saud.

Apparently, from what I've read, Baer mostly inflated claims that are quite common.
I'm not sure about Saudis investing 7% of world's capital in the US, but after all Japan accounts more or less for 30% of global investments. (which is imho the main reason why Bush is absolutely foolish not to worry about N Korea; if they nuke Tokyo, the stocks will crash so heavily that the beggar you just saw on the street will be as wealthy as Bill Gates or Soros)

Yep. It's important to be reminded every once in a while that just because someone (like Baer) says something you agree with, that doesn't make him/her a credible source.

It is also important to be reminded every once in a while that just because someone says something you disagree with, he may not necessarily be a lying liar with extra lying, all caused by the way Israel runs the world with the help of they neo-con paymasters (or is it the other way 'round?)

"It is also important to be reminded every once in a while that just because someone says something you disagree with, he may not necessarily be a lying liar with extra lying, all caused by the way Israel runs the world with the help of they neo-con paymasters (or is it the other way 'round?)"

- But that's the way to bet.

Ok, I was wrong. Like I said, I had a DOD issued clearance because I worked for a Defense contractor. Any classified material I could have disclosed would have been a violation of the Espionage Act. I misunderstood the section about "communication intelligence activities" and figured it meant revealing Top Secret information like the identity of an undercover CIA officer. Make no mistake, the identity of an undercover CIA officer is Top Secret information.