NYT: Citing Security, C.I.A. Seeks Suit's Dismissal (What's this about???)

[DeepModem Mom]

Citing Security, C.I.A. Seeks Suit's Dismissal
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: April 18, 2006

State secrets are involved in a lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency brought by the wife of a former covert operative, lawyers for the agency said yesterday in a New York federal court, arguing that national security will be at risk if the case is allowed to proceed.

At a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, the lawyers asked Judge Laura Taylor Swain to dismiss the case, saying that all of the vital information in the suit was highly classified and could not be disclosed to the woman or her lawyers.

The agency has already combed the documents presented to date in the suit, which was filed last September. Among the information the C.I.A. classified and blacked out were the names of the woman bringing the suit and of her husband, most of the events in dispute, and the name of a second government agency that the woman is suing.

In a declaration presented in court, the director of the C.I.A., Porter J. Goss, said he had determined that classified information about the woman and her husband was "so integral" to the suit that any further court action would require secrets to be disclosed. Publishing any details of the case would cause "serious damage" to national security, Mr. Goss said....

***

The lawyer for the woman who is suing, Mark S. Zaid, said that he had the necessary clearances to see classified information, but that he could not communicate with the woman, who was overseas in a country whose name was blacked out in the court papers....The original suit Mr. Zaid filed, now extensively edited with the agency's blackouts, said the woman's husband was in the securities business, with a New York Stock Exchange license, when he became an undercover agent for the C.I.A. The agency sent him to several foreign countries, then brought him back to the United States in 1999. Sometime later he was "summarily separated" from the C.I.A....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/us/nationalspecial3/18hearing.html

[Xipe Totec]

1. Can't show the evidence?

Then the CIA should not contest the suit.

Summary judgment for the plaintiff is a reasonable solution.

Bah bye! :rofl:

[stillcool]

2. more from the article...

Both the woman and her husband became ill and depressed as a result of his firing, the suit states. The man's depression was compounded, the suit says, after he was in "close physical proximity" to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. The C.I.A. refused to provide medical or psychological care for the couple, so they moved to a foreign country in search of treatment.

For reasons that are classified, the woman and the couple's three children have not been able to return to the United States. She remains "a virtual prisoner" in her home there, the suit says, "constantly fearful of eventual detection," with her mental health deteriorating.

Mr. Zaid said he was barred by secrecy regulations from talking to the woman on a regular, nonsecure telephone line. He could not meet with her in the foreign country because he would break the rules by bringing classified information back into the United States, he said.

"What they are trying to do is strangle my ability to represent these clients," Mr. Zaid told Judge Swain. He asked the judge to order the agency to provide secure channels for him to talk with the woman and her husband.

....now that's fucked up.

[Divernan]

8. Sounds like the woman is back with traditional Taliban family

with no freedom of movement - or couldn't leave her kids behind. What was that movie with Sally Field? "Not With My Daughter"?

[stillcool]

10. I understood it to mean...

she was afraid of being detected in her connection to the CIA.

[HuffleClaw]

3. double hmmmmmm

i wonder what they are so desperate to HIDE. 'securities business'? what sort i wonder. i'm reminded of a certain amount of suspicious trades around the time of the 911 attacks. this one is downright odd.

[NoodleyAppendage]

4. Somehow I suspect this is related to the 9/11 financial schemes,,,

I guess the government assumes that most Americans have forgotten the FACT that there was massive short selling of airline stock and associated industries just before 9/11 and that those transactions were NEVER tracked to their source. Or, that the criminal US government uses banking security laws to shield from efforts to get to the bottom of these 9/11-related financial transactions.

MIHOP/LIHOP is reinforced if word gets out that people were tipped off enough to organize massive financial transactions related to the 9/11 incident.

J

[leesa]

6. The FBI DID identify their source, but refused to disclose them..they just

mumbled, "Move along, nothing to see here." They admitted they knew whose transactions were involved because it was obvious it could be traced.

[Zan_of_Texas]

7. Hmmm. An interesting guess.

However, at least this source believed most of the shorts placed before 9-11 were placed on overseas exchanges.

The September 11 X-Files
5-30-02
The Nation
David Corn

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66

... Some of the lingering questions or peculiar facts warrant more attention than others. There was a boost in short-selling. But does that suggest the US government ignored a clear warning? Or might the more obvious explanation be true--that people close to Osama bin Laden were tipped off and took advantage of that inside information? Ronald Blekicki, who publishes Microcap Analyst, an online investment publication, says most of the short-selling occurred overseas--and escaped notice in the United States. If that type of trading had happened in the US markets, he explains, it would have stirred rumors about the companies involved. "Everyone on the exchanges would have known about it," he explains. "My best guess is that the people who profited were reasonably wealthy individuals in the inner circle of bin Laden and the Taliban." What is curious, though, is that news of the investigations into the short-selling has taken a quick-fade. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor the Chicago Board Options Exchange will say whether they are still investigating trading practices prior to September 11. And there has been no word from Congress or the Bush Administration on this topic. Suspicious minds, no doubt, can view the public absence of government interest as evidence of something amiss. In this instance, the lack of a credible official investigation creates much space for the disciples of conspiracy theories. ..

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Dubya's flunky is trying to close the barn door long after it's....

...been blown off the hinges.

[warrens]

9. Just come up with some evidence of Smirk lying...

He'll declassify her ass in a New York minute.

[lovuian]

11. Embedded CIA agents as stock brokers at the NYstock

exchange... wow ... thats tricky...