Article I, Section 1, US Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

First Amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

In the summer of 2003, after victory had been declared in the invasion of Iraq, then career undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's name was illegally leaked to the press by as yet undetermined government officials, effectively ending her undercover work and potentially endangering her life. Now she is filing suit against VP Cheney, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and 10 unnamed administration officials for maliciously blowing her cover.

Sindicated columnist Robert Novak had published the information, creating a political firestorm and a special prosecutor's investigation. One reporter, Judith Miller, who refused to name her source for the story before the grand jury, went to prison for 85 days, until given a "waiver" of privilege by the vice president's top aide, Lewis Libby, to give his name.

Libby was indicted for misleading investigators on several counts, and resigned his position. As grand jury testimony has been made public through court filings by the special prosecutor's office, it has become clear there were discussions between Mr Libby and his boss, the Vice President, regarding the case of Joseph Wilson, a prominent administration critic, and his wife, Valerie Plame.

In April, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, filed court documents finding that grand jury testimony indicated there was a "concerted effort" to discredit Wilson by attacking his wife, and that revenge for criticism was a possible motive. The filing also listed both the president and the vice president as being involved directly in the campaign against Joseph Wilson, though this did not suggest any specific criminal action by either Bush or Cheney in particular.

Speculation had long brewed that Pres. Bush's top political adviser and deputy White House chief of staff, Karl Rove, would face charges in connection with the leak. But he did not face charges as Mr Libby did, for misleading investigators, and Mr Fitzgerald recently announced he did not plan to seek charges against Rove.

That announcement appeared to prompt Robert Novak, the journalist who broke the story revealing Plame's identity, to admit that Rove had been one of his sources, after all, saying Rove "confirmed" Plame's identity as Wilson's wife and as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. This seemed to many to signal the possible involvement of Rove, after all.

It is a crime against national security to leak the name of an undercover CIA operative, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which states that revealing "any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information" constitutes a violation of the law and can result in $50,000 in fines and/or 10 years in prison. No one has yet been charged with breaking this law.

This, then, would appear to be the reason Ms Plame has chosen to file suit. She wants to ensure that the investigative process continues and believes someone should be punished for apparently using a high-level security clearance to undermine her career. The suit specifically alleges the leak was designed to destroy her career as punishment for her husband's writing an article critical of administration handling of intelligence, published in the New York Times.

The Wilsons' lawyers write in the filing: "This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of … (Plame), whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country".

Plame herself told reporters "I feel strongly, and justice demands, that those who acted so harmfully against our national security must answer for their shameful conduct in court." So far, the administration is dismissing the lawsuit as based on unfounded charges. Karl Rove's attorney has said he has been assured there will be no criminal charges filed against his client. [s]

• ABC: "Former CIA Officer Sues Cheney Over Leak"
• BBC: "US officials 'betrayed' CIA agent"
• Washington Post: "A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic"
• CNN: "Court Documents: Libby testified that Bush OK'd intelligence leak"

BACKGROUND:
COURT FILING CITES 'CONCERTED EFFORT' TO ATTACK CRITICS
WASH. POST REPORTS WHITE HOUSE EFFORT TO USE TOP SECRET INFORMATION TO ATTACK CRITICS OF IRAQ POLICY
9 April 2006

Regardless of whether the president or the vice president have done anything illegal, it is now clear that they were both involved in deliberately using classified national security information to smear a critic of their Iraq policy. This contradicts statements made as recently as last week which suggest that the president opposed any such use of sensitive information for personal or political gain. [Full Story]

LIBBY CHARGED WITH PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION, RESIGNS
29 October 2005

The office of the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, investigating the leaking of the classified identity of an undercover CIA agent, announced Friday a 5-count indictment [PDF] against Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. Libby was charged on 1 count of obstruction of justice, 2 counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury. [Full Story]

WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT LEAKING COVERT OP INFO
14 July 2005

Supporters of Karl Rove, spokespeople for the Republican party and talking points issued to party members, press and pundits have been eagerly asserting that Karl Rove violated no law when he revealed that Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was an "agency" operative, because he did not state her name. In fact, this is plainly false: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the applicable federal law, states that revealing "any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information" constitutes a violation of the law and can result in $50,000 in fines and/or 10 years in prison. [Full Story]