Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Googling for CIA Agents

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jul 15, 2005 03:35 PM
from the tomorrow-today dept.
yali writes "As the heat turns up on the investigation into how an undercover CIA officer's identity was leaked to the press a technology columnist at the SF Chronicle, David Lazarus, shows how easy it is to identify individuals via the Internet. Even with little information, using widely available tools like Google and LexisNexis, it is possible to turn up startlingly relevant details." From the article: "I then went back to Google and got a map of Plame's neighborhood and directions to her home. Google also allowed me to study a high-resolution satellite photo of Plame's house. I could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • And? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Friday July 15 2005, @03:36PM (#13076877) Homepage Journal
    So the reporter was able to identify her by name and her maiden name. He was also able to dig up information as to where she lives and details regarding their home. What he was unable to do with this search is define what it is Ms. Plame actually did for a living. This information could be dug up via a search of tax records documenting her employer, but even this will not describe responsibilities within that employer. For instance, any W-2s I might have had would say that the listed person was an employee of the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency but they would not say anything about what job was actually performed.

    • by WebHostingGuy (825421) * on Friday July 15 2005, @03:42PM (#13076938) Homepage Journal
      their wallet and jewelry box they could look for the "I am a certified spy" card and secret decoder ring.

    • Jesus, could this "story's" headline be any less thought out? When Adm. Poindexter was leading the Total Information Awareness project, this sort [eyeball-series.org] of digital dumpster diving was news three years ago. If someone wants to report on something fresh, they'll need to exploit search engines to find agents when you don't know who they are.
    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      She was a NOC, someone with 'non-offical cover'. Some people know what that means, but many apparently don't.

      For those who don't, anything listing her job would have had her working at that CIA front, 'Brewster Jennings & Associates'. Completely unrelated to the government.

      Which also means she was DISAVOWED if she got caught, not sent home with a stern note and public complaints like those with diplomatic immunity pretending to work for the state department.

      Many times spouses of NOCs don't even know who they really work for. Although presumably hers did, considering who he worked for.

      OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

      • Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jfengel (409917) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:03PM (#13077155) Homepage Journal
        Man, how come I never have mod points when I want them? This is an angle I hadn't realized. It's not just Plame who was outed, but everybody at "Brewster Jennings".
        • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sneakers563 (759525) on Friday July 15 2005, @06:06PM (#13078036)
          Not only that. Think about all the people in foreign countries that had contact with her, maybe even worked with her. Now suppose those people live in countries with not-so-friendly, not-so-concerned-with-human-rights governments. What about them? Make no mistake: outing an agent doesn't just consign them to a desk job for the rest of their lives. In some ways, they're the ones least affected by it. It endangers the lives of countless others in very real ways.
      • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2005, @04:07PM (#13077199)
        > you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

        And numerous eastern european spook agencies where Plame worked for all those years have already done this. I'm sure they've also looked through their past records to find who met with who from that company a few years back.

        I remember back shortly after this Plame story first broke way back when, a friend of a friend said the rumors going over on the Hill (take with whatever salt you feel necessary) said as many as 70 of our sources had vanished. If that's true, most of them probably went into hiding, the remainder would have gotten quietly "picked up." Either way, they're not talking to our people anymore.
        It's dangerous being an informant for a foreign government, especially when that government's spy agencies can be jerked around like this by some half-ass political hack like Karl Rove, the Mayberry Machiavelli.
      • Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)

        by BWJones (18351) * on Friday July 15 2005, @04:09PM (#13077216) Homepage Journal
        We actually do not know for sure what her status was as that information has never been released to the public and knowing the history of the employer, likely will not be.

        OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.

        You should know that there are many, many companies and organizations hire "consultants". Brewster Jennings is a company that was indeed real, but set up as a cover company who may have in fact hired other folks that were not "cover". I am unaware of any specifics that have been published on this. However, you should also know that there are many other real companies that hire consultants. Companies that deal in construction, or real estate, or defense products, or science can all have "consultants" installed and working as cover for other purposes. Many of these companies can be found as customers of Dun & Bradstreet, but I will tell you that there are legitimate companies and cover companies they do business with and they can both do classified work or neither. My point is that just because someone is listed as an employee of such a company, that really means nothing as to their status or identity as a potential NOC. To paraphrase Freud, "A secretary may in fact just be a secretary."

      • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mark_in_Brazil (537925) on Friday July 15 2005, @06:09PM (#13078062)
        OTOH, you can have great fun outing CIA agents by googling "Brewster Jennings" and seeing who claims to work for them.
        Actually, that's the real problem with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Brewster, Jennings was a great CIA asset, with close ties to ARAMCO and other major oil companies and ministries. Now it is useless as a front for US intelligence.
        What's the problem with this? Well, there's been a lot of talk of oil production having reached its peak and begun its decline. Financial Times recently reported that the Saudis had admitted that OPEC oil production won't be able to meet world demand within 20 years.
        I don't know whether petroleum production has yet reached its peak and started to decline, and I don't know when OPEC will not be able to meet world demand. Wouldn't it be nice if at this time of uncertainty, the USA had some kind of asset capable of investigating these things from up close?
        Too bad a political vendetta destroyed major intelligence assets that could have helped with just that.
        • Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)

          by EvilMagnus (32878) on Friday July 15 2005, @06:07PM (#13078045)
          CIA wouldn't have refered the matter to DoJ, and DoJ wouldn't have formed a Grand Jury unless they thought someone broke some laws, Mr Rustmann's analysis notwithstanding.

          And the official position of CIA (not just 'someone who supervised her') is that she was a NOC. You can spin that however you like, but I doubt the Special Counsel will listen to you.
      • Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)

        by BWJones (18351) * on Friday July 15 2005, @03:52PM (#13077038) Homepage Journal
        Don't know how you got modded as insightful since you obviously didn't read the article. Note the comment in the article where it states:

        You don't know much about the Agency do you? Do you have any idea how many analysts work there? Do you realize that all analysts are not "agents" working in secret as supposed employees of the State Department? Do you realize that agents working under-cover are often analysts? Determining who is actually a "spook" can be difficult and that is the problem with this case. If Ms. Plame was actually an under-cover operative, then an egregious violation of protocol and law has occurred.

        As an aside: You should also know that there are a significant number of employees working for the agency that are doing nothing in the way of classified work.

          • Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)

            She was a NOC. Non-official cover.

            She didn't officially work for the US government in any capacity, neither for the CIA or the State Department, where almost all the non-NOCs operatives pretend to work.

      • by sg3000 (87992) * <sg_public&mac,com> on Friday July 15 2005, @04:29PM (#13077397)
        > 'Brewster Jennings & Associates' was a CIA front, or at the very
        > least it had been infiltrated by CIA.

        Yeah, or for the slower witted spies, you could just wait for Novak [townhall.com] to publish his second article where he identified Brewer Jennings & Associates as a CIA front company:

        > In making her April 22, 1999 [to Gore], contribution, Valerie E.
        > Wilson identified herself as an "analyst" with "Brewster-
        > Jennings & Associates." No such firm is listed anywhere, but
        > the late Brewster Jennings was president of Socony-Vacuum
        > oil company a half-century ago. Any CIA employee working
        > under "non-official cover" always is listed with a real firm, but
        > never an imaginary one.

        This was at the beginning of Novak attempting to dismiss Wilson's conclusions about his trip because he was "partisan" (even ignoring the fact that Wilson gave money to Bush and Gore, and he served under both parties' presidents). It's considered to be a logical fallacy, but it hasn't stopped Republicans from trying it in the past two years of this WMD debacle. The fact that they exposed information about the CIA for political gain is unconscionable.
            • He never said Cheney sent him. That's simply a lie. What he said was that the office of the vice president requested the CIA look into this Niger matter. The CIA chose Joe Wilson as he already done this sort of work before (Valerie did not send him to Niger on here own. That's just silly.) He was an ambassador to Niger and Gabon and knew all the players in the area and had completed covert work for the CIA before.
              Here's the quote
              "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
              Media repeated false GOP talking point on authorization for Wilson trip to Niger [mediamatters.org]
  • by cynic10508 (785816) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:40PM (#13076916) Journal
    Nerds playing at being intelligence operatives. Cute.
  • by ndansmith (582590) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:40PM (#13076923)
    She probably shouldn't have joined that "CIA Spooks Only" group at Google groups.
  • by Phoenixhunter (588958) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:41PM (#13076933)
    The wonderful thing about the World Wide Web, the Information Super Highway, the Net, etc, is its ability to provide an enormous amount of information (duh). Compliments of those companies, groups, and otherwise who have developed means to mining this information, it is becoming far easier to find information you're looking for, cross-reference it, and filter out the garbage/noise/conspiracy theorists.

    Information Pollution, one of Arthur C. Clarke's insights pointed out some years back, that a time would come when the amount of noise within that enormous repository of information would become detrimental. In this case, the government might seek to inject as much contradictory information as it can.

  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:42PM (#13076941)
    Did Google present some nice associated ad-links for James Bond cameras, trenchcoats, and Le Carre books while you were doing these searches?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2005, @03:42PM (#13076947)
    What's his scare tactic for next week? How about "Did you know that your name and address are recorded in a privately-produced book that's located in every house and street corner in your town? For a city like New York, that's over 10 million copies of your private information."
    • Even more ironic is if you want an unlisted number, you have to pay extra, but alternatively you can give the phone company any name to put in the directory. I had a friend who was listed in the phone book as "Judy Jetson".
  • Long, long ago (in the '90s), when pondering an activist anti-spam site, I was able to get the name and phone number of Spamford Wallace's mom through doing a variety of online searches, and was seriously considering posting it with a suggestion that people call her and tell her what a terrible mother she must be for raising such a scumbag of a son.

    The reason I didn't... such a sword cuts both ways. If I put his mom in play, all moms became fair game.

    But this was 8 or 9 years ago, and the only thing that reporter cited that I wasn't able to do then was examine satellite photos of Spamford's mom's house.

    - G

    • Long, long ago (in the '90s), when pondering an activist anti-spam site, I was able to get the name and phone number of Spamford Wallace's mom through doing a variety of online searches, and was seriously considering posting it with a suggestion that people call her and tell her what a terrible mother she must be for raising such a scumbag of a son.

      The reason I didn't... such a sword cuts both ways. If I put his mom in play, all moms became fair game.

      But this was 8 or 9 years ago, and the only thing

  • The three monkeys (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elgee (308600) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:42PM (#13076951)
    It is no guarantee, but to maximize your privacy, you must say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing.
  • On Nomenclature: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NoTheory (580275) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:43PM (#13076958)
    The idiocy of the argument that Rove hasn't done something illegal because he only referred to Plame as Wilson's wife is underscored by articles like this. Whether he referred to her by name, or by a unique association to someone else (who is easily searchable) still picks out a unique individual, and thus still identifies her.

    Likewise, I'd go to jail just the same if i was threatening the life of George Bush or the President of the United states.
    • by pcidevel (207951) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:52PM (#13077028)
      Likewise, I'd go to jail just the same if i was threatening the life of George Bush or the President of the United states.

      Or, Laura Bush's husband.
      • by jafac (1449) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:23PM (#13077341) Homepage

        Actually, the reason Rove hasn't done anything illegal is because Plame was not a clandestine agent when her name was revealed. In fact she hadn't been a covert agent for several years before her name was revealed. Also, Plame was never a deep cover NOC.

        Not true. The Washington Times article is wrong. Wilson said that she was no longer covert the day Novak wrote the article - or rather, Novak's article caused her to lose her cover.

        This was made plain by Larry Johnson (who's making the press-rounds this week) who is a former CIA employee who knew Val P, and knew her to be a NOC, and confirms that Novak compromised her identity.

        The misinformation that she was not NOC is just a dust-up to provide cover for Rove. Not only did Rove break the law, but he compromised National Security - and clearly broke the rules that EVERY cleared person signs when they get a clearance.
  • post David Lazarus address, phone number and google map coords? I'm interested in, uh, how accessible his house is by large van...
  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Friday July 15 2005, @03:49PM (#13077015) Homepage Journal
    I could see that the property appears to be in a quiet residential community and looks approachable from all sides. It also offers ready access by car to major thoroughfares.


    A house in a residential area? With easy access by car? And no moats or dragons near by? This must be some sort of top secret CIA house of the future!

    Sensationalism at its finest.

    -Peter
  • by Gopal.V (532678) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:50PM (#13077020) Homepage Journal
    I've heard this a LOT ...
    Technology is like a sword or a gun

    It's used and misused by both sides
    Or in other words, you can do Evil with Google maps. But that doesn't make Google maps evil (maybe CIA might not see it that well).

    Essentially it lets me peek at a street address in NYC sitting here in Bangalore. I can plan and co-ordinate my ops to snuff out someone - especially if the operatives are expendable. Recon became a lot easier , especially of the aerial map kind.

    <sarcasm> How long before we hear that a terrorist attack was planned using Google Maps ? </sarcasm>
  • Imagine if the Terminator had access to the net, as it is now. "Taking Out" all Sarah Conners within a given mile radius is a simple matter of mapping software, addressbooks, and a name+area to target.

    Now, you could locate and plan "events" around individuals throughout the US/world.

    No need for super computers... with a few PCs and access to the various API's on the net, you too can have your own war-room and tactical planning system.

  • by theodicey (662941) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:52PM (#13077031)
    When Robert Novak disclosed of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA operative, the firm (Brewster-Jennings) which was the cover for her counterproliferation work, and presumably many others', was also totally compromised.

    Of course it's not that hard to find out where someone is working (in this case, the existence of Brewster-Jennings wasn't a secret, but the fact that it was a CIA front was).

    But the CIA would have had more time to make sure its agents and assets were secure if the company hadn't been listed on her election contribution records [washingtonpost.com]. You can see them at Open Secrets [opensecrets.org]

    I'm not saying that campaign contribution disclosure is a bad thing. It's essential to the media and bloggers investigating governmental corruption.

    But this is more pathetic evidence that Karl Rove, and everyone else involved at the White House, just didn't care. They were far more interested in retaliation and their own political gain than in the lives that were endangered, and the millions of dollars that were wasted.

  • by sharkb8 (723587) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:58PM (#13077096)
    I doesn't matter that the author was able to look her name in Google. He had to find out that she was a covert operative before he would know to look her up.

    And for what it's worth, it would have been faster to look in "Who's Who in Washington". It list Joseph Wilson, and that he is married to Valerie Wilson. However, nothing this writer looked up told him that she was a covert operative.

    THe information he found had nothing to do with her status at the CIA. He knew who someone was and looked up their name. I can see it now:

    NEXT ON FOX: covert CIA operatives' cover busted by... COLLEGE FACEBOOKS. COULD IT HAPPEN TO YOU?
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:59PM (#13077107) Homepage Journal
    So Google lets you look at satellite photos of addresses. Which photos have already been available, even on the Internet, for a few bucks to anyone. So what? Foreign spy agencies have the bucks for satellite photos. And if they can't find the home address of an Ambassador's wife, they're not very good spies - they're not going to pull off ther rest of their spy operation on her house.

    The entire point here is that someone *cough*Karl Rove*cough* released the secret association between Valerie Plame's identity, and her job as CIA operative. That is the point in the dataflow that is sensitive. It has nothing to do with Google. Hell, I'd like to see you Google someone's house based on their Slashdot userID, let alone a CIA secret identity, without someone leaking that less than "top secret" association.
      • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday July 15 2005, @06:36PM (#13078234) Homepage Journal
        That's a crock. If Rove is protecting the US national security, his job, he responds to questions from reporters asking about a CIA WMD operative with "I don't know", not "she's CIA/WMD". Regardless of his political gain, Rove cannot, as a White House employee, even confirm that someone is CIA, especially during the run up to a war over WMD. That violates national security, that is treason. Rove might have been smart enough not to pick an enemy protected by the laws so far discussed, but he cannot do what he clearly did. And he cannot then lie to the public, claiming "I had nothing to do with it", when he clearly did.

        So you go ahead apologizing for Rove's selfserving attack on a CIA agent. You go ahead patronizing a guy attacking our WMD intelligence system as cover for lies about Iraqi uranium purchases that never existed. You go ahead running cover for the people we have protecting us, who instead lie to invade countries they prefer, instead of finishing the legitimate invasions they're piggybacking on. Go ahead, because you're a traitor too.
  • by billstewart (78916) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:08PM (#13077207) Journal
    Philip Agee [wikipedia.org] (interview about Plame/Wilson affair [democracynow.org]) worked for the CIA from 1957-1968, and left because he disagreed with what the CIA was doing - assassinations, overthrowing governments that weren't politically convenient for the US, supporting Latin American , that sort of thing. In 1975, he wrote a book "Inside the Company: CIA Diary" about his experiences there, which the CIA tried to prevent from being published, and sometime around that time he wrote about how to identify CIA agents from publicly available information - things like the kinds of jobs at US embassies or US military bases that were usually CIA agents. (Imagine if Google had been available back then!) Barbara Bush accused Agee of being a traitor, and George H.W. Bush got Congress to pass a law making it illegal to out CIA agents, and the US and its allies revoked his passport, making it harder for him to travel. I heard Agee speak at Berkeley in ?1979? - very interesting character.

    The Don't-Out-CIA-Agents law that was passed to bust future Agees is now being used to possibly bust G.W.Bush's henchmen, probably his handler Karl Rove. The law makes it more illegal if you have access to classified information (which Rove does, but may or may not have used) and use that to reveal the identity of covert agents, but also makes it illegal to out them using publicly available information.

    The White House has been weasel-wording about "Rove didn't tell Cooper Plame's name, just that she was Wilson's wife", but not only does the law talk about identifying people, not just specifically naming them, but somehow Novak, Cooper, and probably Judith Miller all found out she was an agent, so it wasn't just a "casual remark" intended to "correct mistaken impressions" - it was a well-organized campaign, and Novak apparently talked to two different Administration sources. Not only is Rove guilty, but he's trying to cover it up.

  • With great power... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyngus (753668) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:10PM (#13077224)
    ...comes great responsibility. Seriously, as more information becomes more readily available you're going to need to be able to trust everyone else more. What's the reason that most crime isn't committed? Because its too hard due to a lack of information. In other words, most of today's security is still obtained through obscurity. The burglar doesn't break into your house cause he doesn't have the blueprints to plan escape routes. The more you know the easier it is to plan an attack. A similar increase in information does not produce the same attack resistance, since an attacker must only choose one vector, while you have to protect against all of many possible vectors of attack. More information exposes more attack vectors and effectively weakens your defenses. You better start loving your neighbor, cause its only going to get easier for him to attack.
  • According to this story from The Guardian [guardian.co.uk], David Kelly was actually exposed by correlating data using Google.
    Norton-Taylor said, "I went to the internet and searched through Google and I pressed a couple of words in. I typed in the search engine something like 'Britain' plus 'Unscom' plus maybe one other word. About the first or second item on that list that came up on Google was a lecture David Kelly had given, I think in America, and it said that he was a former British Unscom inspector."
    After that, Norton-Taylor still needed confirmation, but the UK government had promised to act as an oracle [guardian.co.uk].

    The second part is the more important one. Finding information is easy, most of the time. Deciding what's relevant is the key issue.
  • Not only that (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mkro (644055) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:34PM (#13077425)
    Photos of Valerie Plame has not exactly been floating around (Except that "mysterious" Vanity Fair photo), but a few weeks ago when using Google image search, I found this page [nathanslunch.com]. Scroll a bit down, and Valerie and Joseph is posing for the camera. Not only that, the web page author is scaling the picture with the img tag. Enter the image url directly, and voila -- 2048x1536 goodness. If not a fake, it must be the most detailed picture that can be found of her on the internet.
  • Misleading title (Score:4, Informative)

    by Guppy06 (410832) * on Friday July 15 2005, @05:36PM (#13077877) Journal
    The article talks about Googling not for CIA agents in general, but for a very specific agent, one whose identity had been leaked to the press (in a possibly illegal manner, gottal love habeas corpus). I doubt he'd have any luck with finding information Random Spook #3269823.12, unless some "senior administration officials" feel the need to tell us his or her identity...
  • Damn you're good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ehiris (214677) on Friday July 15 2005, @06:21PM (#13078125) Homepage
    Now please locate Osama for us.
    • by tenchiken (22661) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:33PM (#13077414)
      Nevermind the fact that Patriot isn't even in use here, and has nothing to do with this subject. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your trolls. I am sure some /.er will moderate you up for it.
    • by demachina (71715) on Friday July 15 2005, @04:36PM (#13077448)
      Uh, this is a compeltely overblown attempt at sensationalism, and its just another embarrassment for Slashdot editors that they bit. Lazarus isn't exposing anything beyond finding someones address in a phone book(or if its unlisted in some other public database), and I image the Wilson's address is widely known at this point. Its not exactly top secret, that once you find someones address, you can get directions or an aerial photo in this day and age. News at 11.....we have this thing called the Internet where you can get maps and photos these days. If you've ever contributed to a political campaign, your name, I think address and how much you gave is online now too.

      The only confidential information involved in this whole pitch was that Plame was a CIA agent and THAT was probably not in any public records until Bob Novak published it in a newspaper, probably thanks to Karl Rove or his friends in the White House for leaking that fact to him. Whomever was spreading it around that she was a CIA agent was the only one guilty of anything here, and that was a very low tech ancient offense, leaking and smearing.

      The Judith Miller case is potentially interesting though. Maybe she is a crusading journalist fighting for a first ammendment right to protect sources which is the angle most media outlets pitch since she is one of their own. But there are two alternate explanations floating around that are plausible, more interesting, but hard to prove:

      A. Judith Miller was a key inciter of the WMD charges against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. She made her career frothing up a panic about the dangers of chemical and biological weapons, and she did half the Bush administrations work for them in trying to build a case that Saddam was an imminent danger to the U.S. because he had them so had to be taken down (at GREAT cost to the U.S. in blood, gold and respect). At this point it appears Miller's multiyear WMD crusade against Saddam was totally wrong. In some circles her career as a journalist is in ruin, because she was both wrong, and looks like a patsy for the Bush administration. Some think she went to jail with glee in an attempt to salvage her reputation by playing the martyr.

      B. The second alternate is that Miller is hiding more than just her source. There are indications that her source already released her from any need to maintain confidentiality, so there is a question as to why she still is. One hypothesis is that Miller may have been one of the earlier people who found out Plame was a CIA agent and she may have been calling people, like Karl Rove and saying, "Did you know Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent specializing in WMD and sent him on the mission", and people like Rove were repeating something Miller told them, not leaking to Miller. If thats the case, though its a bit of a long shot, then she could be charged for blowing Plame's cover and she might refusing to testify to the grand jury not to protect her source but to protect herself, and in a way that is less obvious than pleading the fifth.
      • by timster (32400) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:54PM (#13077055)
        Let's remember that this is the NYT reporter who wrote stories citing that anonymous sources knew that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
        • Let's remember that this is the NYT reporter who wrote stories citing that anonymous sources knew that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

          Oh, well by all means, then let's just have her thrown to the wolves then eh? Despite her other stories, the fact remains that Judith Miller is willing to take prison time for the sake of her professional ethics. I consider her reporting on the WMDs in Iraq to be incidental to the case - and a whole other bag of proverbial worms.
    • by prockcore (543967) on Friday July 15 2005, @03:58PM (#13077102)
      Her husband, when pressed (cuz it's kinda dopey to complain about bureaucrats being outed...) admits as much.

      No he didn't.

      "In stating that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," Wilson was simply noting that Plame's identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it."

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003 [mediamatters.org]

      The AP has already run a correction to the story you link to. Nice try though.
        • Regardless of the ongoing investigation, his quotes could cut either way

          True, which is why he clarified it today.

          "In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand."
    • Which is more scary, that privacy in general is a hard to obtain or that the Internet makes it readily available to anyone with too much time on their hands.

      The courts and republican administrations have done everything they can to take away all privacy. Check out the promises the republican national committie and the City of Boston made during the conventions. Boston installed thousands of cameras throught the city, to provide added security for the republican convention. Boston promised to take them d