C is for CIA and that's good enough for me.

The headlines blared in the LA Times today (November 4th) that "Libby pleaded 'not guilty.'" This is only the latest attention grabbing headline of late. Ever since Libby's idictment on October 28, the CIA Leak Investigation has been a mainstay in the presses.

Before I say anything more, a little background is necessary. The story runs like this:

Valery Plame, as reported by the Associated Press was "In truth, ... [an] overt operative for the CIA and a specialist in weapons of mass destruction, a fact unknown even to close friends and neighbors."

Her name was leaked as a CIA operative to Judith Miller, who ran a column on the subject. Incidentally, Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her confidential source, finally being released on September 30th. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson "says [it] was an act of retribution after he spoke out against the administration."

That's about it. It is worthy to note there is a discuss if Plame was really an overt operative (ie: not covert and not needing secrecy). Even if she was covert, she didn't hide it very well. The Weekly Standard points out

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. . . . 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. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name

Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. . . . An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication..."

I just want to talk about an apparent double standard. The press trumpets that we should protect secret operatives and then does the exact opposite.

Take for example the article run on November 2nd about secret CIA prisons. The story prompted investigations by the European Union into the matter. The Washington Post article features the code name of one of the larger facilities "Salt Pit," satellite imagery of its location in Afghanistan, and names of some of the top al Qaeda operatives being held there.

I ask you, what is more damaging to our national security and the CIA: the revealing of a nominally secret operative in the United States, or the revealing of a prison facility created to help gather intelligence about terrorist operations? Apparently, a standard does exist. If it hurts the current administration, it runs ... even at the cost of security.