Posted on 04/23/2006 11:33:40 AM PDT by Laverne
The Justice Department needs to be aggressive in the case of the CIA leaker.
There are countless questions that arise out of the CIA's dismissal of a prominent intelligence officer, Mary O. McCarthy (no relation), for leaking classified information to the media. But one in particular springs to mind right now: Why isn't she in handcuffs?
A C.I.A. officer has been fired for unauthorized contact with the media and for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information," said a C.I.A. spokesman, Paul Gimigliano. "This is a violation of the secrecy agreement that is the condition of employment with C.I.A. The officer has acknowledged the contact and the disclosures.
The Times further reports, according to unnamed officials, that McCarthy "was given a polygraph examination, confronted about answers given to the polygraph examiner and confessed."
The case against McCarthy, moreover, is said to involve not just a single illegal disclosure of the Nation's secrets, but several. One prominent instance is reported to involve alerting the press that the CIA had arrangements with overseas intelligence services for the detention of high-level al Qaeda detainees captured in the war on terror — from whom the culling of intelligence is critical to the safety of Americans.
The so-called "black site" prisons were later publicized by Dana Priest of the Washington Post, jeopardizing not only the detainee intelligence stream but, just as importantly, America's relationship with the cooperating governments — on whom we rely because of our global dearth of intelligence assets, and who are now incentivized to cut-off information exchanges because they believe (with some obvious justification) that our intelligence community is not trustworthy.
As a result of all this, McCarthy was fired, stripped of her security clearance, and escorted from the CIA's premises last Thursday. Yet, she has not been arrested.
More alarmingly, according to government officials who spoke to the Washington Post, she may not even be the subject of a criminal investigation. Indeed, unnamed Justice Department lawyers reportedly told the Times that McCarthy's "termination could mean she would be spared criminal prosecution."
This is hard to fathom. Federal law, specifically, Section 793(d) of Title 18, United States Code, clearly makes it an offense, punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment, for anyone who lawfully has access to national defense information — including information which "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" — to willfully communicate that information to any person not entitled to have it.
McCarthy had access to classified information about our wartime national defense activities by virtue of her official position at the CIA. The compromise of that information appears to have been devastating to U.S. intelligence efforts — in wartime, no less. CIA Director Porter Goss testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February that the "damage" from leaks "has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission." The unauthorized disclosures were also, patently, a boon to several foreign nations, which have used it to put immense pressure — under the guise of international law — on countries that heretofore have been willing to run the risk of helping the United States battle terrorists.
In other words, this seems like a straightforward case. The Times suggests that "the C.I.A.'s reliance on the polygraph in Ms. McCarthy's case could make it more difficult for the government to prosecute her." That seems farfetched. Yes, lie-detector-test results — i.e., the actual findings about whether or not a person was truthful during a polygraph examination — are inadmissible in federal court. But so what? That has nothing to do with the underlying evidence of conduct. Nor should it render problematic any admissions the person makes — including any confession, such as the one McCarthy is reported to have given.
The only way a polygraph could complicate a prosecution would be if McCarthy was given immunity of some kind in exchange for submitting to it. That, however, is highly unlikely. In her sensitive job, McCarthy could no doubt be polygraphed as a condition of her employment — the government should not have needed to trade away any rights to get her to take the test.
Evidence aside, it is essential for policy reasons that this case be prosecuted aggressively. The intelligence community's leaking of information to the media since 9/11 has been breathtaking. The Bush Justice Department's response has not been inspiring.
Sandy Berger, the former national-security adviser who filched classified information from the national archives and then lied about it to investigators was, appallingly, given the sweetheart deal of the century: a guilty plea to a mere misdemeanor, no jail time, and even the prospect of getting his security clearance back after three years. In stark contrast, non-government persons, like the two AIPAC lobbyists scheduled to start trial shortly, face the possibility of years of imprisonment for passing information they were given by a former Defense Department official to a friendly government. (To be fair, the Defense Department official was prosecuted, although that is a long story for another day.) The public needs to know that there are not two standards of justice, and, worse, the kind of double-standard in which government coddles its own high officials while slamming ordinary citizens.
We can argue forever — and we probably will — about whether media people should be prosecuted for publishing secrets they are well aware will harm the nation and the war effort. Public officials, to the contrary, should not be a close call — they are in violation of both the law and a solemn oath.
An additional, compelling policy consideration is also at issue here. Mary McCarthy's position — the post from which she is likely to have learned the most sensitive information at the heart of the leak controversy — was inside the CIA's inspector general's office. This is the unit that investigates internal misconduct. This is the unit to which government employees are encouraged to report government abuse or illegality so it can be investigated, potentially reported to Congress, and prosecuted if appropriate.
That is, it is the legal alternative to leaking national secrets to the media.
It is, therefore, the process that has to be protected if our intelligence community is to have credibility with the public and with the foreign intelligence services on which we are so dependent. If it becomes just another Washington sieve — a place where people who comply with their oaths and exercise professional discretion may nevertheless expect to find the information they confide trumpeted on Page One of the Washington Post — we are guaranteed to have much more leaking. And much less security.
Cleaning government's own house in such weighty matters is one of the principal reasons why we have federal law enforcement.
Hopefully it's only because they are collecting SCADS of evidence on ALL the coup-plotters!!!!!
I've been listening to the leftist kooks. McCarthy is a national hero who was acting as a matter of conscience. She is yet another saint for those who support destroying the United States. Releasing information is more important than preserving national secrets.
The 'Beltocracy' has its own code..
McCarthy thinks McCarthy ought to be prosecuted; McCarthy thinks otherwise, of course.
If not McCarthy, why the Rosenbergs?
She is a Democrat and the MSM loves her, she will only get good press and besides Bush is evil and needs to be reigned in for the GOOD of the COUNTRY.
The obvious spin which the MSM will shout from the mountaintops over and over and over again is:
"SHE DID IT FOR HER COUNTRY!!"
If only that were the case. In reality, Democrats skate, and Republicans get indicted. Can anyone doubt that if this were a leak by a Republican, she would be indicted? That's what the New Tone is all about. No justice for Democrats, witch hunts for Republicans. Go figure.
I wonder how many more Mary McCarthy's are out there in the CIA..the NSA and a whole buncha agencies we have never heard of. The way to send a message is the Bill of Rights ends where national security is involved. That moves you into espionage and treason in a time of war.
Many people, especially in the press, are attempting to frame Ms. McCarthy’s action as just giving or leaking information to a reporter. Looking at it this way could give a degree of legitimacy as the press, like it or not, is a constitutionally recognized entity. I believe the more accurate way to view her action was passing secrets to real and potential enemies "through" the press. The fact that a constitutionally recognized entity was used as a conduit should not give any legitimacy to the underlying crime of passing classified information to the enemy.
Hopefully, while she may have been fired for violating the terms of employment by engaging in improper contact with the press, she will be prosecuted for more serious offenses related to giving classified information to the enemy.
she isn't in cuffs because of whatever else it is she may say at a trial.
Andrew makes some decent points in this article. What he stays clear of is the Libby case where for so long he defended the prosecutor, his former colleague.
It has always struck me that the CIA referral letter in the Plame case was an outright fraud. Now it appears this leaker was in the Agency's IG office and may well have played a part in that chapter of the coup attempt against the Administration as well.
It's on Monday evenings at 9 PM.
Sandy Burglar is a pompous ass...doubt if he sang or turned on anyone. He KNOWS about Arkancide.
Bush's position was very difficult at the start of his administration, because gore and clinton blocked any transition period from taking place. As a result, he was months behind in making appointments. Then the Democrats started to block the appointment process.
So, difficult position, admittedly.
But, what did Bush do about this? NOTHING. He never raised a stink about clinton's unconscionable refusal to let the transition proceed. He never raised a stink about Democrat obstructionism. He never made any effort to clean the clintonoids out of key posts all over his government.
As a result, we still have gangs of leftists imposing arbitrary regulations all over the place. We still have a corrupt FBI with criminal clintonoids in all the top spots. We still have a CIA with a huge rogue element. We still have a Pentagon stuffed full of clintonoid generals, who bitch and whine after they retire.
Get with the program. After eight years in office, Bush has barely started to clean out government. He hasn't even TRIED, with the sole exception, about 5 years too late, of replacing Tenet with Goss at the CIA. And even there, he doesn't seem to be taking it seriously.
I like Bush, and I support him most of the time. But his personnel policies are his biggest failure. He knows how to make good appointments, as he showed with people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Why the hell doesn't he go beyond the top level with it?
We will just have to wait and see how all this plays out over the next week or so. MSM is trying to cover for Ms. McCarthy because her leaks support the anti-war crowd(i.e., the MSM). Bloggers are all over this story, there is so much good research going on across the board...from JOM to Protein Wisdom, and many more. Old media will ignore and try to frame this as much as, and as long as, they can. I'm sure Goss will hold a presser soon, and that will then frame the story. Until he does that, old media will play their games, and they will yet again lost more credibility.
The next big thing that has to happen here, is Fitzy has to be forced to say publically that Libby WAS NOT THE LEAKER. I'm surprised the judge has not yet made him make a public statement correcting the record; or the DOJ (who is supposed to be overseeing him, but by some blunder in the responsibilities given to Fitzy, he is able to lie to the public).
These stupid analogies the old media is making, Bush leaked so its OK if CIA leaks, is such a ludicrous argument, yet many folks will buy it.
In this country we have a free press, we do not have a fair press. Old media is made up almost completely of anti-war democrats, and until they start changing out the old for th enew, much like they are calling on the Bush admin to do so, we will not get facts from them.
Finally, old media calls for transparency from Government, yet claim privilege for themselves. They are two-faced liars, who spread water cooler gossip as "news stories". Their credibility is far lower than the Presidents (in terms of polls), and in the end, they will be the losers.
Truth always outs itself -- it just takes time. I wish I had the patience of President Bush, but I don't, so I send flaming emails to the media on a regular basis.
Finally, with articles like this, more word gets out. We just need to make sure it stays out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.