Subject: Security Clearances and Classified Information for Dummies

There are several things involved with obtaining a security clearance. Depending on the level of clearance required, you may have to only have an ENTNAC and a Locals Record Check completed. If you require a higher level clearance, you will be finger printed, have to complete a very long and extensive security clearance form, and be subjected to a background investigation or special background investigation.

Once all of these have been successfully completed, you will be awarded your security clearance. You will have to sign many documents stating that you understand the responsibilities of having a security clearance and the safeguarding of any and ALL classified information that you have access to. Simply because you have a security clearance doesn't mean that you will be able to walk into the CIA and ask to see their classified documents.

There is another rule that limits your access to classified information: You have to have the proper level of clearance and you MUST have a need-to-know. Both of these conditions must be met before you will be allowed access to classified material. Likewise, you have a moral and legal obligation to safeguard that information. You do NOT share classified information with other people -- especially if they do not have a security clearance and do not have a need-to-know. In fact, you don't even acknowledge anything or any questions from anyone who does not have a clearance or a "need-to-know." You keep your mouth shut about what you have seen and what you know.

Quite simply, the old adage "loose lips sink ships" applies here. The smallest bit of information may not be that important in your opinion, however, it could be enough if passed to the wrong person to blow an operational mission, or blow the cover of an undercover CIA agent or a covert Special Operations commando.

Did Karl Rove do anything wrong? Yes, unequivocally so. In the world of intelligence he broke every cardinal rule. He acknowledged classified information to someone (Bob Novak) who did not have a security clearance or a need-to-know. If Rove did not know whether or not Ms. Plame was a NOC CIA agent, he was morally and legally obligated to keep his mouth shut.

There are no "ifs, ands, or buts" when it comes to the safeguarding of classified information. National Security is not based on "ifs, ands, or buts." It is based on keeping your mouth shut about what you know and not compromising any information to someone who does not have a security clearance.

Should Rove have known that Novak had no clearance? Unequivocally yes. There would be no reason for a journalist to have a government security clearance nor a "need-to-know."

Should Rove be prosecuted? Yes, he should. His "loose lips" compromised a HUMINT network that CIA had cultivated over a number of years and blew the cover not only of Ms. Plame, but those of her "undercover" contacts, and the "front-organization" that provided the "working cover" for Ms. Plame and others.

Should this be considered treason? Yes, no doubt about it. Should he be indicted and should he stand trial? Yes, no doubt about it. What Rove did is reprehensible at the very least. It was treasonous at its worst.

Lisa J.
Milwaukee, WI

---

Subject: Maybe a Wig?

I've heard a lot about Plame going to work every day at CIA headquarters. Could it be possible that while doing her covert work for the CIA, she was in disguise? That's simple. This makes it even worse that the traitors in this administration outed her. Hell, they even told the enemy where they could find her and others. This outing also makes it more difficult for agents to do their jobs in the future. Not to mention the extra cost to the tax payer.

Richard
Texas

---

Subject: Jean Charles de Menezes

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes is a horrifying tragedy, a waste and a sorrow for the people who knew and loved him, and they have my deepest condolences.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a regrettable waste, and forces us to ask whether roving assassination squads in our public thoroughfares is an answer to anything.

The account of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in the London subway is a textbook example of modern propaganda and new management. When the first reports of his death were released we were told the London police were confident they had killed a fleeing terrorist connected with earlier bombings. We were told he was shot before horrified commuters after trying to flee the police.

For hours that was the story, and I knew he was innocent. News lies are like a magician's trick, and once you get the trick it loses the power to deceive. I knew he was innocent and I knew this in my bones, new it like I could bet my house or my head on it. How did I know? Knowing is the easy part. It's easy to know when you know what to listen for. And when you don't hear what you ought to hear, you just know.

The first news reports told us all about his suspicious behavior and his death, but failed to tell us whether he had a bomb or other weapon. So I knew he was unarmed, and terrorists are not unarmed.

When they finally admitted the truth, it was in the slowest part of the news cycle, and the reports continued to cast suspicion on the victim. They said he came from a house the police were watching. Technically this was true, but only because the police were watching a whole neighborhood of apartments. They said he was wearing a heavy coat, but it was only a jacket. "Witnesses" (police?) say he jumped a turnstile, and perhaps he did, even though he had a four-day ticket in his pocket. They say he jumped the stile and ran, but they don't tell us if he was running because everybody else was running, and that he was part of a stampede at that point.

The police piled on him after he fell, and they shot his head off. They say this is necessary because giving him time to react would give him time to detonate a bomb. So maybe he ran knowing he was already a dead man, knowing somehow his fate was sealed the moment he entered the station, that they were going to shoot him down, bang bang bang bang bang.

Rosamond

---

Subject: Five Bullets Deadly to Innocents

Short walk and the No2 bus - a very ordinary journey to death: Guardian writers trace the life and last minutes of Jean Charles de Menezes (The Guardian)

Okay, I know that this is the third letter this weekend, but so much is happening that I cannot help it. I just would like to express my condemnation of the killing of an innocent man in such a brutal fashion (the creeping tide of fascism? You or I next?) then explained away as, "So what? It is the only way we can deal with terrorists, kill anyone who looks suspicious." What arrogance! The bile fills my throat as I read those sentiments.

The articles forthcoming all claim that the man was suspicious because he wore a bulky jacket in the unholy heat wave of over 21 degrees Celsius! ("parsing": over 21C is not 22C or over which would make it over 76F) Oh my gawd! It was over 75F (but not 76F)! What a heat wave. This is so laughable in the extent that it shows the lack of understanding of anyone who does not live in climes that are warmer than ours above the fiftieth parallel. To those who live in areas where 17C (approx. 68F) is cause to break out the tees and shorts and lose the jackets it is warm because we have been living at a constant near, or below freezing level. Live in areas where those temperatures are winter and summers are more likely to be far warmer, you have a person who will be dressed for their winters. The bulky jacket makes sense; the man felt cold regardless that he had spent three years in England. His body had still not acclimatized.

I know this is so because of my own experience in moving from Quebec and Ontario (two separate times) to the temperate British Columbian coast where a cold winter is in the low single digits above freezing (celsius in Canada). I seldom wear eastern type winter coats because they are too warm, whereas, those who are native to the coast feel that it is incredibly cold and ask why am I not cold in my light late fall jacket. I know that when tourists still arrive in the fall and early winter from California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, etc. they complain about the cold when we are in shorts or light gear that there is a difference in body adjustment. To us, it really isn't that cold. Our international students at the university constantly complain that it is so cold if they are from South America, the Middle East or India where the climates are hot (to us in one of the most temperate areas of our country) whereas, those who come from the Northern European or British countries feel we are either warm or very similar to their experiences.

So you have a man in England, where 75F to 80F is a heat wave to natives, and he feels cold because his heat wave are temperatures hitting a possible 120F, if not more when one includes the humidex. His spring and winters consist of what we in the more northerly countries feel are hot. That makes him suspect? Euro-Centric, ethnocentric thinking is killing all those who do not conform. This is sick and will not stop until people understand that not everyone experiences life in the same light (or temperature) as they. It does not mean that they are terrorists because they are not like us. But killing him with five bullets to his head when on his face with police sitting on him is okay because there are terrorists out there. Give me an effen break (excuse the language, I am angry). I hurt so much from the weak defenses that those who would do harm under the guise of safety and security hide, that I cannot but protest.

Anyone who has studied humanities, societies and cultures will know that this is a Western war against all those who are not of European descent nor will those non-Caucasians easily subscribe to foreign Western ideologies. I strongly suggest to all who seek power, whether in political, military, policing or corporate positions, or who are in any position of power that the study ethnography be mandatory to better understand humans across the broad spectrum of societies and cultures and so major errors of judgements such as we have been seeing throughout our lifetimes and perhaps more so in our present, will not need to be repeated over and over again to justify that which can never be justifiable. No one nationality is more deserving than any other. No human is above any other. We are all here regardless of ethnicity, race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, biological sex, wealth or poverty, and deserve the same rights as any other human being. One of the most basic of rights is the right to life, and another is the right for a voice.

This woman is angry at the lack of humanity in our "moral and generous" white Western societies. So much to be done against so many injustices, but I will fight the battle to my death.

Marie-France Germain
Nanaimo, BC, Canada

---

Subject: The Brazilian

not even bearded!! ... just wondering dept.: so where are the surveillance video camera images of this young bulky guy in his bulky unseasonable suspicious bulky coat with wires sticking out of it? huh? an electrician. that explains the wires. wonder if it was the same kind of bulkinesses that gw was wearing under his attire back in the day, remember? ha ha just wondering.

Wanwan

---

I send you articles fairly often. My husband has a theory about Rove, which I found curious. It's in regards to the Espionage Act of 1917. The statute prohibits the disclosure of classified information to "anyone" not authorized to possess it. There is little doubt that Ms Wilson's status as a covert agent was classified; it is equally certain that Robert "the Dupe" Novak was not authorized to possess that information. And the act is violated whether the disclosure is to a foreign spy or to the press. I am enclosing the link to an excellent discussion of the espionage act's application to a case like this in U.S. v. Morison, 604 F Supp. 655 (1985).

http://www.mtsu.edu/%7Elburriss/morison.html

There is even a possibility that the case might be interpreted to involve the theft and conversion of government property under 18 USC 641. The plain reality is that Rove may possibly have sacrificed the security and safety of the United States for a short term political objective - the weakening of an opponent of the Administration.

This could be why Novak worked out some deal for himself. Miller is in deeper doo-doo than we thought possible. I believe this should fly around the blogosphere by everyone because it is another piece to Fitzgerald's puzzle. If Fitzgerald is not pursuing this, the more it is exposed, the more he won't be able to ignore it. I trust you will see that it gets out there.

Sharon 
Tucson, AZ

---

Subject: Re. Testimony

If you go to C-Span home page and look for the hearing entitled "Hearing on Security Implications of Revealing Covert Agent's Identity" (07/22/05) and watch it, it is a two hour session which deflates all the Admin spinning plain and concrete logic which blows out of the water all of the Administrative reasoning. Pure and simple it is a case for treason at the highest level.

http://www.c-span.org/

Joyce

---

Subject: Drudge Slimes Lance Armstrong

Lance Armstrong wins his 7th Tour de France in a row, a phenomenal achievement. John Kerry is there in France to celebrate with Lance. Kerry suggests that Lance might consider a career in politics. The next day, Matt Drudge suggests that Lance has, for all these years, and after being tested scores of times, been successful because he used banned drugs for performance enhancement.

If Lance has been the slickest of unethical athletes and gotten by with something, he should take his victory laps and be done with it. The mainstream press will put a sticky note on the slander and follow-up if Lance ever takes a non-republican position on anything interesting. Drudge has the full faith and credit of Rove, et al., and an embarrassing outcome is all but guaranteed.

But if Lance is clean (as the Tour has said for seven years and as his opponents have never refuted) then he should come out with guns blazing and with every Democrat screaming at the top of their lungs about the republican dirty tricks machine (of which the Plame leak is a part) and make sure the public knows that what we have now is Nixonesque dirty tricks on steroids.

Maybe, just maybe, we can finally get Joe and Jane Sixpack to see how filthy this new breed of republicans has become.

Dick Smith
Alexandria, VA

---

Subject: Judith Miller's Longevity

About Judith Miller; I'm not sure she fully understands the import of her 'inaction.' The people involved want to stay in power at all costs and the only way to keep her secret safe for them is, unfortunately for her, to have her maintain her silence permanently, whatever that may entail. If she realizes this in time, and let's hope she does, it might make a difference. Accidents happen, Judith; to good AND bad intentioned people.

Father Tyme

---

I saw on the news that osama bin laden may be involved in these latest attacks. But that just can't be because I remember seeing bush on tv telling reporters he is no longer worried about osama bin laden.

km

---

Re: Treasongate

Of course, Gonzales called Card. Card and Bush also go waaaay back. The only official with closer personal ties to Bush in the current administration than Card is Rove himself. By alerting Card that evening, Alberto essentially allowed Card enough time to contact those guilty parties who had personally talked/emailed/called Bush personally so that they had time to purge computers, file cabinets, Oval Office tape recordings, et cetera, of any incriminating documentation of any type whatsoever tying Bush personally and directly to the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. If there is no physical evidence for the investigators to find that Bush was in the loop, then Bush could/can deny he knew anything, anything at all, about the plot ("treasonous act") to out a CIA officer, particularly a NOC. It was a precious twelve hours that Bush loyalist Ashcroft allowed Bush loyalist Gonzales in which to protect the president, and Gonzales did not disappoint. He only had to ask himself who could make use of those twelve hours most effectively. The answer is clear: the chief of staff, who stewards every aspect of the White House operation and who most certainly has the president's best interests at heart.

This not unexpected response has been tested and retested over time. It allowed Reagan and Bush I to skate out of Iran-Contra relatively unscathed and allowed Nixon to disavow any personal knowledge of the Watergate break-in; that is, until the world learned of the famous taping system in his office. These criminals would not allow that type of carelessness to derail them. It allows for obstruction of any investigation through destruction of incriminating documents and artfully sets the stage for plausible deniability. From that point onward, Bush could state that he did not know who leaked top secret information -- but, man, he sure wanted to find out and would punish those pesky leakers, don't you know -- because he was assured that there would be no incriminating tape recordings, intra-office memos, emails or any other documentation that would trip him up.

And the excuse Gonzales gave that he did not initiate an immediate investigation because he wanted to wait to find out whether or not there would be a "criminal" investigation is pure chutzpah and, as noted in the Washington Post and elsewhere, laughably transparent. If the investigation was being initiated by the Department of Justice, it WAS a criminal investigation. DOJ's investigations are conducted by its in-house team: the FBI. Yes, it had be conducted by the FBI, not a lowly inspector general who had no jurisdiction over the White House. Clearly, indisputably, Ashcroft passed that information on to Gonzales in that initial conversation with one thought in mind: protect the president. How could he not? Why else would he call at eight in the evening?

Furthermore, it is now abundantly clear from subsequent remarks that the leakers anticipated that the reporters would resort to the shield of confidentiality, assuring that the leakers' identities would never become public knowledge, at least not through the reporters. The reporters were so key to the investigation that Fitzgerald pursued appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to force their testimony in order to overcome that perceived barrier. Time magazine's Pearlstine threw the baby out with the bath water when he unexpectedly turned Matt Cooper's emails and other documents over to the Special Prosecutor, and the leakers' remaining shield was pierced as a result. The equivalence of the Time/Cooper documents to the Nixon tapes is now unambiguous.

It is also noted that John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee, was actually selected more than a year ago, according to the latest news reports from this weekend. All the later supposition as to the nominee is pure smoke. His nomination was settled on more than a year ago, period. Bush and Gonzales knew full well Roberts' history of unbridled loyalty to the administration in the Reagan and Bush I eras. He was a known quantity, a tried and true loyalist. They determined that if all other defenses failed Roberts' services may be needed if this case were to in the future reach the Supreme Court where his vote in favor of the administration can be assured -- just like money in the bank. He is a true believer of the strong presidency model. His support for such has been uniform and consistent. Did not Bush I nominate him for a federal judgeship? Could it be that he was counseled early on to maintain a low profile, proffer no controversial opinions publicly, avoid controversial alliances (Federalist Society), create no waves of any kind, in order to set himself up for the Supreme Court at a later point in time?

Has Roberts not already proved his bona fides in that he voted against opening up the Energy Task Force files to outside investigators? Has Roberts not already proved his bona fides in that he voted in favor of the White House position that enemy combatants can be "tried" before military tribunals where guilty verdicts are built into the system because the defendant cannot adequately defend himself instead of courts marshall or even our normal criminal justice system which have rules that allow a defendant access to all evidence against him? What more could you possibly ask? The timing of O'Connor's resignation and his nomination is fortuitous for all the guilty parties, the leakers, is it not? What a dream come true. What with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas already in the president's corner, the addition of Roberts makes a majority in the event that this case reaches the high court. That is called security. So much security, in fact, that the addition of a nominee, who clearly exhibits symptoms of acute mental illness (obsessive-compulsive disorder and perfectionism among others), is waived off as inconsequential. Indeed, the very symptoms of mental illness that are so apparent are applauded as virtues instead of blatant warning signs.

It is said that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. In this particular case of outing a CIA officer purely for political retaliation, I think not. The crime itself by any other name is Treason against the United States of America. How could any cover-up top that?

SherAn

---

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THE JULY 26, 2005 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

---