Talk:Brewster Jennings & Associates

Heading?

I don t understand how no other agent has been discovered. Usually, I think a few agents share the same cover. The CIA doesn t like it, but it is easier that way. You can't make up a whole company just for one person.

If a journalist could find out more about other agents, this would show that the leak was serious (and it would be legal for a journalist to out them)

There is no reason not to make up a company for one agent. All this cover seemed to involve was some stationary, a mail box and a phone. They apparently never even had an office. People who have nothing to do with spying often have several business names. The point is the CIA took steps to provide her with a cover. That would appear to meet one of the tests under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act --agr 20:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I addressed this issue with a new edit. As soon as the Novak column ran, it was pretty much assumed that her company was a front and that other undercover agents worked there as well, meaning their cover was blown as well. Daniel Case 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the link to Robert Novak's column on Brewster Jennings no longer exists. Is there another source for this column? Marie26 06:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. But I believe the company no longer exists. Can someone confirm and add to the article? I too am quite surprised no one has ever publicly outed anyone else who was part of this company. I suppose one of the reasons is the only people who were aware or had heard of this company were those who were under surveliance and although I'm sure they're pleased to have found out it was a CIA front, they'll prefer to use the information they have on former covert operatives for their own purposes rather then publicly reveal it. Nil Einne 10:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I'm reinserting the opening phrase about Brewster Jennings & Associates was a front company set up by the CIA for Valerie Plame, an operative for the Agency whose identity was possibly disclosed for political retaliation. - if there are any issues with the wording, I'd welcome seeing them addressed on the talk page, instead of just saying that CNN and Fox News (Which are opposite ends of the political spectrum) "don't count". The wording is informative enough to cause people to go "Hrmm, who's this now?" and click through to Plame's article, without actually naming any possibly guilty parties. It's as NPOV as I can tell, but I welcome debate on the subject Sherurcij 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out the "reason for existence" language because there was no supporting information given. (Understandably so, the source for that purported info was a discussion on dailykos a while back.)

I also attached the only mainstream investigation of Brewster Jennings...from the Boston Globe. It was just a P.O. Box and apparently only had one employee.

But the reality is that you don't now know, and will never know, if, when, how many, or how serious the leak was to other operatives. To state definitively that no other agents cover was blown is just wishful thinking and serves a political purpose.

Clarification

Just a note, that I hope (wish?) you all read before editing in anything in the future, since it seems to be a recurring problem. The article is to assume that Plame was the only agent involved in the company. A minor wording like "the only agent affected" might be alright, but do not under any circumstances expose us all to your deluded ranting from watching Colin Farrel in "The Recruit" too many times - don't talk about how it might be thousands, or really cool ninja NOCs might be involved...presumably if any other agents were threatened or exposed by this affair, there would be an even larger publicity stink - so it's unfair to talk about "but there may have been many more, whose lives were put in danger, because Karl Rove is a crook, and I hate religious freaks, and why can't George Bush pronounce words properly?" or anything remotely resembling it.

Don't make me bite you Sherurcij 00:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

My understanding is there were other resources, working undercover using Brewster Jennings as a front, who were at least arrested when Valerie Plame was outed in Robert Novak's column. I heard this information from a former U.S. intelligence employee talking to Randi Rhodes on AirAmericaRadio.com last year. Because of the confidentiality of the subject, he could not get into specifics of exactly how many resources were involved or what happened to them.

You may well have heard that on an extreme POV radio show, but your understanding is incorrect. There is no evidence that BJ&A has ever had any employees other than Plame.--Mr j galt 19:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The two names I've seen mentioned as other Brewster-Jennings "employees" are Jean C. Edwards and Robert Lawrence Ellman. Google them and you'll find all sorts of left-wing and right-wing articles taking positions on the import of the fact that these two people listed Brewster Jennings on their resumes. Neither appeared to be active Brewster-Jennings "employees" at the time of the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity.

The CIA has not made public its damage report regarding this matter, and they are not expected to. There are internet rumors that as many as 70 people disappeared or were reassigned as a result of this, but such rumors don't appear in published sources and are unlikely to represent more than hearsay. Three intelligence officers, speaking anonymously, told one reporter that other NOCs were exposed as a result of the leak; the article includes the following tidbits:

Three intelligence officers confirmed that other CIA non-official cover officers were compromised, but did not indicate the number of people operating under non-official cover that were affected or the way in which these individuals were impaired. None of the sources would say whether there were American or foreign casualties as a result of the leak.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.[1]

Of course, looking only at current operations of Wilson or of Brewster-Jennings (assuming any existed) is only a small part of the picture; the leak undoubtedly also compromised any networks or covers she might have utilized in the past.

It's unlikely the extent of the damage will ever be known publicly, but one thing is for sure: even if there was no specific damage to any specific ongoing operation or personnel, the leak has likely had a serious impact on future national security by damaging recruiting prospects irreparably. Who would want to be a NOC now, knowing that their cover (and possibly their safety) is subject to the political whims of the Vice President?--csloat 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

here's a bit more on this, from Knight Ridder, October 19, 2003:

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the name of which has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with -- on business or not -- may be in danger. The directorate is conducting an extensive damage assessment. And Plame's exposure may make it harder for American spies to persuade foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said.

-csloat 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

weird database issue?

I tried to remove the section "B-J Cover was thin at best" but wound up replacing it by accident. This seems to have been corrected by Sherucij, but when I look at the page, the section is still there. Yet if I go to edit the page, it is not there. Is anyone else getting this problem?--csloat 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a cache issue, if you know how to clear your browser cache, then do it. Otherwise, just hit "Shift" and "F5" at the same time (the function keys along the top of your keyboard), to cause a "hard refresh" which will discard the cache of that site in your internet history and re-load it from scratch :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ellmann

Claims that it was a hoax. Kudos to the editors here for keeping it out of the article. --Paul E. Ester 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of information: This URL resolves to "The Ellmann Hoax: Inside the Experiment" (title). --NYScholar 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the relationship between this section information provided by Paul E. Ester and the source by Carolyn Kuhn that someone inserted in the article Valerie Plame whose reference citation I corrected there and also provided in this article. Is this article part of a "hoax"? If so please advise and remove if it is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it from both articles: This is the source info. (in note format):

Cf. Carolyn Kuhn, "Libby Trial: Plame, Brewster, Ellmann, Edwards, Dennehy, Jennings: Not Secret?", online posting, dc.indymedia.org (Washington, D.C. "newswire"), January 31, 2007, accessed May 5, 2007. [Kuhn states that "Brewster Jennings" was a front for Valerie Plame, Jean C. Edwards, Robert Ellmann, Paul Jennings (of the Anglo-Irish Bank), and others and that the Boston accounting firm "Burke Dennehy" at the same address and phone number was in turn a front for the firm called "Brewster Jennings".] Cf. Brewster Jennings and Brewster Jennings & Associates.

--NYScholar 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sibel Edmonds

I don't know how to integrate the information coming for Sibel Edmonds into the article, so I put it here.

I quote from the following interview with the makers of the film Kill the messenger:

In November 2005, we learnt from the Turkish paper Hurriyet that Plame was investigating Turkey, but not only that: she was investigating the ATC! Our intuition had proved right.

Later, in April 2006, we confronted Sibel with this set of facts and ask her to go on the record. Sibel’s line about Plame and Brewster Jennings is just gold. She said: "During my time at the FBI, I never heard the name Valerie Plame - but if you are asking me about Brewster Jennings, that's another story, a story that I cannot comment on because I cannot talk about anything that I did at the FBI - and the targets and the details of the investigations." The message is crystal clear: there are mentions of Brewster Jennings on the wiretaps! Praises to Sibel to be so smart in front of a camera.

AugustinMa 09:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Deletion of some unreliable sources: see WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Reliable sources as well as WP:Cite. --NYScholar 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Items violating WP:BLP are "deleted on sight" (Wikipedia policy). --NYScholar 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brewster Jennings & Associates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316104030-43341.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712201718/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1011-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1011-01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)