Talk:CIA leak grand jury investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Plame CIA Leak Grand Jury Investigation

I'm starting a very bare bones entry about the Plame CIA leak investigation by a federal grand jury. The Plame Affair entry is cluttered, not current, and needs to be updated. Also, some of the information may be POV. Plan to sort out the timeline, update the witness list, sources, and link to main players in the grand jury aspect of the affair. When it is finished, we can decide to merge it with Plame Affair or leave separate.--FloNight 21:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice start. I took some time to order the names and get some consistency in the styles. I think it's easier to deal with names in alphabetical order. The Plame affair sitaution is very complex and going to continue into perhaps additional grand juries being impaneled, public trials, so having a good clear focused article on the Fitzgerald investigation is a good idea. It has a clear start and finish and I'm sure much will be appearing on the Fitzgerald website, newspapers, and scholarly writings which will be worthy references and naturally there's a ton of things for Wikisource as well. I've not had much time to Wikipedia, but I'll keep this on Watchlist and check it as it develops. Calicocat 00:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Why would you start yet another article? We already have plame affair, cheneygate, and now this one. I recommend this article be deleted as per deletion policy.(Bjorn Tipling 21:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
I disagree that it should be deleted, it's a good article in the growing family of articles regarding the CIA Leak Case. In addition, if you are going to VfD an article, you should at least do it the right way. Calicocat 05:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It was done the right way, there's no need to attack me personally because you don't like the way I feel about this article. (Bjorn Tipling 06:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)).

[edit] Rename the Article

I think the article should be renamed as in accordance with naming conventions Specificially the reasons are:

  1. wikipedia:naming conventions (precision)

I don't believe this name will work very well in a search. I think something like 'Fitzgerald investigation', or something along those lines would prove to be better. A quick check on Google (Search) brings more relevant articles for 'Fitzgerald investigation' than the current name (Google Search) (look at the page count difference).

  1. wikipedia:naming conventions (common names)

I think the title is incredibly wordy, it's also not accurate as the grand jury is only one part of the entire investigation (the trial of Scooter Libby, the ongoing investigation of Rove). I think the words in the name can be confusing.

I will not just rename/move the article on my own since I vfd and lost. I'd rather get some comments first so I don't appear as some tyrannical editor who gets everyone upset. (Bjorn Tipling 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

I agree. The current title looks like it's a bunch of words just randomly picked to describe the event. Bjelleklang - talk 19:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
A title should identify the subject matter with precision. There have been more than 1 leak from the CIA in the past; it is likely there will be more in the future. Therefore the title "CIA leak etc." lacks necessary precision. rewinn 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] j galt's edit war

User:Mr j galt has taken his 'not covert' edit war to over a dozen articles, including this one. While neither Fitzgerald nor the indictment declares Plame's status as covert as per the IIPA, the indictment of Libby does describe the investigation - into the disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel.

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury). [1]
Actually, that's simply a citation of what codes were being investigated. Libby has not been convicted of anything. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be missing the point of my cite. The point of my cite is that the investigation was to determine whether a covert intelligence agent's identity was blown. Not to claim anyone was convicted, nor even to claim Plame's status was definitely covert... just to point out that the DoJ is conducting an investigation into such a potential crime. And in fact, Libby was only indicted for perjury... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So what were the problems with Galt's edits, exactly, in the context of this article? Most of them were rewordings of existing material that could have stayed and gone, the lowest edit I might have reverted myself if I caught it, but other than that...? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Galt's changing of all references from 'covert' to 'classified' is what I object to. Still do. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello RyanFreisling and badlydrawnjeff :- ) This was the first article that I started. And today I will hit 1000 edits. I'll do it moving the references from the text to the reference section it the text stays in. It messes up the numbers otherwise. By the way, either classified or covert is fine with me. --FloNight 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats User:FloNight! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :- ) --FloNight 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first sentence

The first sentence is confusing if you don't already know what this is about:

CIA leak grand jury investigation (rel. Valerie Plame affair) is an ongoing federal inquiry "into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity,", a possible violation of criminal statutes, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 793.

Besides the problems with the title discussed by others above, and besides the dual consecutive commas, why are there quotation marks around "into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity"? Is that a quote from somewhere? I think it is just something inserted by galt in his attempt to carry the edit war here. "alleged unauthorized disclosure" is unwieldy. I suggest "federal inquiry into the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA agent's covert identity." We know the disclosure occurred and we know it was unauthorized; the only thing "alleged" is that a particular person or group of persons was behind the disclosure.csloat 04:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some one changed it. I don't know who. Your wording sounds fine. --FloNight 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the covertness of her identity is also alleged. There may be a stray comma in there, but the quote is, I believe, direct from what was linked there at the time. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's been established that she was covert in the literal sense (undercover). There is dispute about whether her status fits the definition of "covert" established by the IIPA, which includes the requirement that she served out of the country, but there is no real question about whether she was covert in the sense of under cover. You should take a look at the discussion on Talk:Plame affair for details on this. The bottom line is that the only people who have the authority to say whether she was under cover or not is the CIA, and they made that clear when they asked for the investigation (CIA officials have also confirmed it to various reporters).--csloat 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
badlydrawnjeff, I meant my original first sentence was changed. Someone changed it and put in the intext ref link. My original text said covert, but I can live with it either way. --FloNight 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it has never been established that Plame was covert. On March 23, 2005, every major news organization, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters, and the White House correspondents, joined to file a friend of the court brief on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper.
They said:
"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the “deep cover” required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. § 426 (“covert agent” defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington – not stationed abroad – for a number of years."[2]
October 28, 2005, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asked if Plame was covert and he responded:
"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."[3]--Mr j galt 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Before you fork and literally duplicate your (erroneous) argument from Talk:Plame affair, consider this a formal request that you desist, and return to the original argument. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The original argument is that the 1st sentence is confusing or at least awkward. That is certainly true. What can be done? I took a small slice at it but maybe some its original editors may wish to weigh in. rewinn 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armitage?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031800908.html Kevin Baastalk 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEO20060318&articleId=2124 Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court filings

i've added some of the released court filings pertaining to the upcoming trial. summarizing them may take up too much space, so i simply listed what they were and linked them. it's a start. Anthonymendoza 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plame affair criminal investigation

shall we merge this page with the Plame affair criminal investigation? Anthonymendoza 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I merged Plame affair criminal investigation since it took most of its format and content from this article. FloNight talk 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PLease do not make such a major change without discussion. The pages should be merged, not redirected. The title cia leak etc lacks precision because there are more than 1 instances of CIA leaks. I will remove the redirect so this can be discussed and merged in a careful fashion. Whichever page survives should contain all the data from both pages. rewinn 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The redirect, then prod

The way I see it, an article existed on this topic for 9 months. Then an editor unaware of this decided to make a duplicate. It appears that the editor realized the first article already existed soon after starting the new one. Instead of stopping, the editor continued writing the new article. To me that is just wrong. As editors we are suppose to work together to improve articles not start new ones that duplicate existing material.

I redircted the article to make the new editor stop and work on the old article. When an editor reverted and stated that material needed to be merged, I put the prod tag on thinking that would give the editor 5 days to move the material before it was deleted. The prod tag was removed saying to discuss. What is there to discuss? This article already exists. Another one is not needed. FloNight talk 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The way you see it is not the way it happened. Go look at the talk pages and edit histories. Basically Plame Affair carried much more information than CIA leak grand jury investigation and needed splitting out. While it was possible to massively edit CIA leak grand jury investigation to include the relevant materials from Plame affair, for the sake of getting the split accomplished Plame affair criminal investigation was created with the relevant content from Plame affair, including many paragraphs not on CIA leak grand jury investigation. Later, another editor added much helpful information into Plame affair criminal investigation from CIA leak grand jury investigation. So what is there to discuss:
  1. Should one of the articles be summarily deleted? I think the answer is obviously no, that would be vandalism. The articles are far from identical in content.
  2. Should the content of one of the articles be merged with that of the other, resulting in one complete article, with the other a re-direct? IMO yes. But since this wikipedia is editted by volunteers, don't try to put a time limit on it. It'll get done if anyone really cares, but having semi-dup articles in the meantime is harmless.
  3. Which article title should be the primary article, and which the re-direct? This really doesn't matter much. IMO Plame affair is the primary article since it is far more precise than CIA Leak. But of course in a practical sense both articles will continue, just one's a re-direct. Perhaps Plame affair (grand jury investigation) would be the name that most closely conforms to wikiStandards. rewinn 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block quotations

Formatting was incorrect. Italics are not the proper format for block quotations. Italics are for emphasis and titles. See W:Help with editing if need to learn how to format quotations properly.--NYScholar 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Added cleanup tag; the notes formatting in this article is confusing; I've separated out the numbered external links (or most of them) so that other editors can work on fixing the formatting of notes; editorial interpolations w/in angle brackets throughout the article indicate the problems and what still needs to be done. The instructions given by an earlier editor are incorrect and have resulted in improperly formatted notes throughout. References need to be done in proper bibliographical format too. There is no need for numbered external links; they need to be converted to notes and bibliography formats for "Notes" or "References" sections.--NYScholar 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/a/Talk%7ECIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation_716a.html"