Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Fired CIA official: where did she get the info?
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, April 22, 2006

I ask that because I stumbled across Larry Johnson's blog "No Quarter". Johnson, formerly with the CIA, worked for a short time for Mary McCarthy, the CIA employee who was fired. He's no friend of hers and, in fact, says he really didn't enjoy working for her.

However he has some questions about how McCarthy got the info she's said to have leaked. He's of the opinion something is just not quite right:

[I give his assessment credence because he has inside knowledge about how the CIA is organized and an insiders understanding of what McCarthy would and wouldn't have had access too (just like I give credence to reports by ex-military people about military organizational analysis over that of journalists with no military experience).]
That said, I take no delight in the news that she was fired. In fact, there are some things about the case that puzzle me. For starters, Mary never worked on the Operations side of the house. In other words, she never worked a job where she would have had first hand operational knowledge about secret prisons. She worked the analytical side of the CIA and served with the National Intelligence Council. According to press reports, she subsequently worked at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) from 2001 thru 2005. That is a type of academic/policy wonk position and, again, would not put her in a position to know anything first hand about secret prisons.

Sometime within the last year she returned to CIA on a terminal assignment. I've heard through the grapevine that she was attending the seminar for officers who are retiring while working with the Inspector General (IG). Now things get interesting. She could find out about secret prisons if Intelligence Officers involved with that program had filed a complaint with the IG or if there was some incident that compelled senior CIA officials to determine an investigation was warranted. In other words, this program did not come to Mary's attention (if the allegations are true) because she worked on it as an ops officer. Instead, it appears an investigation of the practice had been proposed or was underway. That's another story reporters probably ought to be tracking down.
Johnson concludes that perhaps, then, given the fact that she shouldn't have had access to the informatinn that the firing may be because she's a whistleblower.

The question, or rather dilemma, is can one be fired for whistleblowing if the subject revealed is classified? There are, after all, laws which protect whistleblowers. And given Johnson's analysis, it would appear that McCarthy might have gotten the information she would not have been otherwise privy too (need to know and all) through the IG's office.

As Johnson points out in his article, this is an something the press should be pursuing.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
First, Larry Johnson spent the majority of his career at State, not the CIA. Second, Mr Johnson is a known, partisan Democrat, who’s done nothing but attack the Bush Administration. Why shouldn’t he now, do everything he can to diminish the (Democrat) damage inflicted by the McCarthy revelations? Third, you’re way behind the curve in ferreting out the connections between McCarthy, Johnson, Seymour Hersh, Dana Priest, Sandy Burgler, Richard Clarke, Rand Beers, John Kerry, etc. Partisan Democrats all.
 
Written By: MaDr
URL: http://
The theory being floated is she was set up with a sting. As the AP reported the EU can not verify what she supposedly "leaked", the secret prisons in europe. I wonder if Dana Priest has to give back her Pulitzer.

And wasn’t she fired for not passing a lie detector test, which is standard procedure from what I gather, though I could be wrong about the SOP.

Its about time they did something about the CIA leaks. If the CIA was a boat, it be sitting at the bottom of the river.
 
Written By: Wilky
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but people who leak to the *press* are never "whistleblowers". If she had legal or moral concerns she could have gone, at the absolute worst case, to a congressman or senator. Leaking to the press is, in my opinion, about making yourself feel important.

Frankly, I find the idea that she leaked knowledge of a secret investigation into the prisons only slightly more credible than the theory that the entire "detention center" story was a false spread that CIA management internally to try to find leakers.
 
Written By: Michael Heinz
URL: http://
First, Larry Johnson spent the majority of his career at State, not the CIA.
Which has little to do with his understanding of how the organization is structured, how information is channeled and who is privy to what.
Third, you’re way behind the curve in ferreting out the connections between McCarthy, Johnson, Seymour Hersh, Dana Priest, Sandy Burgler, Richard Clarke, Rand Beers, John Kerry, etc. Partisan Democrats all.
I’m not attempting to "ferret" anything "out". I’m interested in answers to Johnson’s questions, all of which you ignored.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It seems the Europeans are having trouble finding those prisons.

Did Dana Priest (WaPo) win a Pulitzer for a story about CIA prisons that never existed ?

Many are not conjecturing that the CIA "rendition" prison story was a plant to flush out a leaker. A story so good that there was no needed to check it out thoroughly.

If this CIA prison story is in fact faux, the body count could be very high. One ob the bodies most probably will be any possible journalist shield law.

 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
It seems the Europeans are having trouble finding those prisons.

Did Dana Priest (WaPo) win a Pulitzer for a story about CIA prisons that never existed ?

Many are now conjecturing that the CIA "rendition" prison story was a plant to flush out a leaker. A story so good that there was no needed to check it out thoroughly.

If this CIA prison story is in fact faux, the body count could be very high. One of the bodies most probably will be any possible journalistic shield law.

 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
According to the AP, she was investigating mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq. I bet Larry Johnson doesn’t know that either. He’s just spinning, as usual.

As for the notion of this being a sting, I don’t believe it for a second. ’Secret Prisons’ is probably nothing more than a safe house or two. No wonder nobody can find them. The press does like to mischaracterize things.
 
Written By: Syl
URL: http://yargb.blogspot.com
Ah the "Sting" operation gambit... I wonder if that’s going to be the Left’s argument, this time. Kind of like Starr’s "Perjury Trap" of course the answer in these cases is DON’T DO THE WRONG THING, i.e. don’t lie under oath, don’t pass on classified information to the WaPo, but that’s too easy I guess.

I really don’t care about Johnson’s Questions McQ... What I care about is did she or did she not pass classified information? And will she be chargesd? And will others be charged? The rest is just "fluff."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yes, all in all, very interesting 24 hours. Almost like the sort that Jack Bauer has to go face.

Larry Johnson is an interesting character. Everytime I read his stuff in the press, I am reminded of his infamous op-ed in the NYT in July 2001 saying that regular terrorism was a fading problem and that there would not be any serious incidents in the future. Based on the success of his predictions, I am generally inclined to believe the opposite of what he says. He was of the same mind as Richard Clarke and thought that cyber-terrorism would be the next big thing.

As to the immediate charges facing Mary McCarthy, apparently she failed a SERIES of lie detector tests and this the prisons story was just one of SEVERAL leaks she was behind. Given that perspective, she is a serial traitor. For the left to call her a whistleblower is not unlike calling the Rosenbergs whistleblowers also. But hey, what have classified info at all if you can violate your oath at the drop of a hat or the chance to get your party in office.

Also, it appears that her dismissal was from a tipster. They probably catch someone lower down and he/she turned her in. They probably setup a a nice trap to catch her in the act.

MaDr is quite right and there is an interesting symmetry between all these players. Mary worked for Sandy Berger and Rand Beers. Larry Johnson worked (at one time) for Mary. Mary in term worked for Richard Clarke also. During the Clinton years she worked at NSC and then when the Bush Admin came in she got pushed back to Langley working at IG. In fact, it is rumored that she was involved in the whole Joe Wilson recommendation thing with Valerie Plame. What a nice circle that would be. She is creditied with being one of the anaoymous sources behind the check into Wolson’s story after he published his op-ed.

If the whole prison thing was a complete putup job to catch leakers, then it was a master stroke and bravo I say.

Sure, McQ, it doesn’t answer your questions. There probably is something to this prison story. How else could you catch an experienced CIA senior officer unless you had a story that had a signifacnt enough back story to it?

After all, how effective are your national intelligent services when they are waging war against each other and the leaders of your country. Now we know why the CIA are so ineffective at catching OBL. It seems they are more interested in catching GWB.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I really don’t care about Johnson’s Questions McQ...
Then why comment on the post Joe?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
There probably is something to this prison story. How else could you catch an experienced CIA senior officer unless you had a story that had a signifacnt enough back story to it?
All of you are interested in the political aspect of this. I’m interested, for lack of a better word, in the technical aspect. Where was it she got her information if she wasn’t employed in an area where that info would be available to her. Did she get it through being associated with the IG’s office? If so, was it a case she was working or was it one she wasn’t working? If she wasn’t working it, yet got the info, then there’s more than one "leaker".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I wrote what I wrote because it’s a thread on the subject. Why should we care about Johnson’s s questions over say MY questions?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Uh, gee Joe, I don’t know ... maybe because the post is about Johnson’s questions?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Or a thread about the leak in general...unless you’re going to start deleting posts that don’t relate or aren’t ruled "germane" to the bill.

The next leakers to be investigated OUGHT to be the crew that leaked CentCom’s war plans to the Press prior to OIF.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
...unless you’re going to start deleting posts that don’t relate or aren’t ruled "germane" to the bill.
Why ... have you been deleted?
The next leakers to be investigated OUGHT to be the crew that leaked CentCom’s war plans to the Press prior to OIF.
Whatever.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
A joke McQ...lighten up. It’s a web site, not Congress it’s a thread not War and Peace. If it bothers you, my advice is don’t bite, or "Don’t feed the trolls."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I can promise you Joe ... you’ll know when I’m excited or bothered by something.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Hi McQ, from what I have been reading on this in the fog and smoke of cyberspace, Mary was caught via a tipoff. They probably caught a smaller fish and that person gave her up.

However, as to how she got information (the technical side). Apparently, she does work for the Inspector General office in the CIA which amongst its task looks into malfeasance and crimes (funny that). From what I can determine she was looking into prisoner abuse allegations. That is how (depending on what happened) (a) she heard the sorry, (b) it was feed to her about the "secret" prisons. Does that make sense?

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Apparently, she does work for the Inspector General office in the CIA which amongst its task looks into malfeasance and crimes (funny that). From what I can determine she was looking into prisoner abuse allegations. That is how (depending on what happened) (a) she heard the sorry, (b) it was feed to her about the "secret" prisons. Does that make sense?
It is a possible explanation. It is the "depending on what happened" part that remains unclear. And the entire point of the post was to say we should also be pursuing the "depending on what happend" part of this as well ... if we’re really worried about leaks that is.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
yes, agreed. My problem is a complete lack of respect for the "Clowns in Action". The military, yes, CIA, no. I don’t trust that their motives are good for the US.

But, yes, if we want any sort of teeth into consequences for giving classified material away then someone, sometime, somewhere has to pay for doing it. Otherwise, what is the point of having regulations for classified material.

I am not sure we will really know the "depending on what happened". Should we know? Could we trust it? All good questions. I think that things are at the point where neither side (in the blogosphere) believes what they read anywhere.

I come here for the decided lack of water carrying for any side. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Maybe she got the information from friends or colleagues with big mouths. Some people just don’t take security very seriously, even in intelligence organizations.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
McQ back again...Again who CARES how she got the information? Pollard, Ames, and Hansen ALL revealed information that was NOT in their purview. Only in the case of Pllard did anyone wonder, indirectly, HOW he got access-and then because apparently his control officer fed him the document numbers of the information he was tasked to collect-the question became HOW DID THE ISRAELIS KNOW THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT NUMBERS? Hansen and Aldrich Ames simply used their positions to acquire data to pass on. So why couldn’t have McCarthy? Just because the information is SUPPOSED to be compartmented, doesn’t mean it actually IS.

So again who cares? Did she steal it, was it a tip-off, was it a sting...Who cares? Would it change the US Code violations? Would it make her any less guilty? The idea of a "sting" is this guy’s way of LESSENING her guilt, "Oh she didn’t release the information. It was given to her. It was s ’Sting.’"

Well McQ remember ABSCAM? Did the Congressmen involved get to say, "Hey this was a ’Sting’ the FBI came to me with a proposal to sell my vote. It’s not like I sought out the guys to sell my vote." McCarthy was obligted by law, by professinal ethics, and by dint of her tour in the IG’s office to NOT reveal the information,even if someone presented it to her, and to initiate an investigation or inform her superiors so that they could initiate an investigation of any possible leaks. NOT PASS THE INFORMATION TO DANA PRIEST.

Again, who cares HOW she got it? The question really is did she do it? Who else is involved? Will she and others be charged? Any other questions are secondary or in this guy’s case merely chaff thrown up to distract us from asking the REAL questions.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Comment: McQ back again...Again who CARES how she got the information?


You’re kidding right?

I care because if it was given to her she’s only one of the leakers. She’s the one who went public.

But it only matters if you’re concerned about leaks, that is.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It’s always a joy to stop by here. Today I learned that:
1. Mary McCarthy is a democrat and should not be trusted to have pure motives.
2. Mary fraternizes with other known democrats and should not be trusted
3. Larry Johnson should not be trusted because of his incorrect article in 2001
4. Even though SECSTATE traveled to Europe to allay any concerns about secret prisons and some foreign countries were reminded of how they supported the effort, there are still some people trying to say the prisons did not exist and it was all a super secret cover story to trap Mary.

My conclusion is that only Republicans should be trusted who do not know any democrats and who do not write articles with false predictions and that speculation that the prisons did not exist is stronger than assertions they actually did. (It would be ironic to have Mary up on charges for reinforcing a falsehood that secret prisons exist.)

I am with McQ on this. What did Mary glean and when and from whom? This is no neophyte in the world of secrets. What possessed her to talk about this?
 
Written By: Dale
URL: http://
I don’t know Dale... she doesn’t LIKE Bush? She disagrees with Bush? Again Dale and McQ WHY is irrelevant, isn’t it? Why did Bubba hit his wife? Why did Lemonghello decide to deal crack? Did Mussouai’s (sp.) childhoold of abuse and abandonment led to his decision to join in the 9-11 attacks? What matters is that, THEY DID DO THESE THINGS. They did them or did not do them... the WHY is irrelevant.

Note McCarthy and others aren’t saying she was entrapped, only that she was set-up.That someone presented to her information with a certain clearance and that she revealed this information with someone NOT CLEARED to receive it. That’s a crime, if she did it. WHY she did it is a subject of conjecture, heroine, partisan hack...you decide.

And Dale, just because you’re paranoid DOESN’T MEAN THEY’RE NOT OUT TO GET YOU. So all her links to the Democrats may not mean she’s a hack, but neither does it mean she is NOT. And the fact that many of the folks speaking FOR her all are Democrats, who worked for Clinton, and the fact that she maxed out on her contributions to DEMOCRATIC campaigns does make one wonder.

And this leads back to my continuing question, WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT HER MOTIVATION? To discuss her motivation is to fall for the "chaff"...the irrelevancy of WHY? This is beginning to sound a bit like the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with a focus on anti-anti-Communism... Someone can be a Leftist and that’s OK, but to question their ideology and it’s effects in the real world, then the questioning is suspect... not the person being questioned.

So she works for Clinton; all her supporters, so far, are Clinton White House staff; and she and her husband have given $10,000-plus to Kerry, to Democrat candidates, and to the SDemocratic Party; without any balancing Republican contributions. And this is now evidence that she’s being smeared?

I believe that the Democrats worried about a ’conspiracy’ to "get" Clinton thru a billionaire named Mellon-Scaife... and if all the folks involved in the Clinton case had been Republicans there would have been justifiable questions raised by their claims... or to put another face to it, "Are ONLY Democrats to be trusted to have pure motives in defense of her?"
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Dale, obviously a KosKid here to REVEAL truth to power to the McChimpyBusHilter minions.

My snark about Larry Johnson (which I prefixed as an opinion) was that before 911 he was all about "There is no more Terrorism" and post 911 he was all Moorian conspiracy theories such as Bush missed it and Bush was the only person to blame for 911 (an agency CYA). The fact that Johnson was wrapped in helping the Kerry campaign never seemed to cross any minds writing articles about him. Think how it would play if he was on Bush’s side. Let’s not pretend that Johnson is not a partisan with an axe to grind.

McQ, I agree with your concern. With regards to her being just one of the leakers, mostly articles that I have read indicate that there are more and that she was an easy low hanging fruit to get first. Some articles seem to draw some light to towards elected officials as well. For those of us who were wondering why the WH was not fighting back, this seems to indicate that maybe (an opinion afterall) there was a plan afterall. The old adage about enough rope...

Sure, the links are quite tenuous but they are very interesting. I am not saying there is a definite link but I take delight in it making the left side of the blogosphere are uncomfortable. Like good old Dale our visitng eschatothonion.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
This whole leaker/whistleblower debate is fascinating. But it seems that the hard and fast rule is that passing anything that embarasses or hurts a Republican is a courageous whistleblower, and anything else is a nasty evil leaker.

But hey, this firing is just the first wave of what the NYTimes and others have wrought with their overblown hysteria of the Plame non-case. One can only hope to see reporters and their editorslaid low- fired and possibly jailed.

Hey, it was what they wanted. Now god willing, they will get it :)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
[i]I’m interested, for lack of a better word, in the technical aspect. Where was it she got her information if she wasn’t employed in an area where that info would be available to her. Did she get it through being associated with the IG’s office? If so, was it a case she was working or was it one she wasn’t working? If she wasn’t working it, yet got the info, then there’s more than one "leaker[/i]

Lost of ways she could’ve got that info, from snooping where she shouldn’t have, to pillow talk, to sloppy data handling and compartmentalization procedures, etc. And I’m sure that the investigation is backtracking her trail to see who else needs to go. But honestly, go in there, randonly point at someone and chances are you’ll find someone who has to go.

As I have noted before, it’s getting to the point that I would counsel an incoming administration of a different political party to fire every single person at CIA and State. Some of these people- many of these people- have forgotten who is in charge, and who they are supposed to work for
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If you feel something is serious enough to breaching national security,
then its al least serious enough to risk losing you job over and you should have no complaints.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
If you feel something is serious enough to breaching national security, then its al least serious enough to risk losing you job over and you should have no complaints.
Agreed ... which, off topic, makes me wonder about the generals criticizing Rumsfeld.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I read elsewhere that she returned to the CIA in 2004. Her campaign contributions list the following:
US GOVERNMENT/ANALYST 10/29/2004
U.S. GOVERNMENT/CIVAL SERVANT 11/1/2002
RETIRED/RETIRED 7/16/2002
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL 10/5/2004
U.S. GOVERNMENT/ANALYST 3/14/2004

(CSIS states she joined in August 2001 as a Visiting Fellow. It doesn’t state when she left and rejoined the Agency.)

For future reference, the CIA organizational chart can be found here.

From macsmind, "OIG conducts inspections, investigations, and audits at Headquarters and in the field, and oversees the Agency-wide grievance-handling system."

From what I understand, the CIA hasn’t published her rank at the time of dismissal. Given the position she formerly held, she may have been a point person to oversee the more sensitive investigations and internal grievances.

And, doesn’t she have a background in "Social Science Data Archive." For all we know, she may have played a role in developing the databases currently in use and would know what to find where.


 
Written By: katie
URL: http://
If you feel something is serious enough to breaching national security,
then its al least serious enough to risk losing you job over and you should have no complaints
Aren’t there appropriate mechanisms for someone with a problem like to go through? I mean, there are "whistleblower" procedures that alert the necessary Senate subcommittes, right?

If that’s so, and she didn’t use them, I support- demand- immediate jailing for her.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I remember a time when we discussed ideas instead of partisanship; when pursuit of truth was important and not political affiliation. Why is everyone so focused on the tint of one’s eyeglasses instead of what one is seeing?

I come here to learn what I do not know and perhaps to share what I have learned. Now I am stained a Daily Kos partisan and an Eschatonian. I assume this sets me up as untrustworthy or something less than others who are here. Without the right filters, I just cannot be accepted.

To set everyone’s mind at ease, I voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life. I have been in senior corporate management in divisions of Fortune 100 companies and have worked in start up operations as well. I have a daughter who works at a national laboratory for the defense of our homeland and another daughter who spent two years in the Peace Corps in Africa living in primitive conditions to help others. And a third daughter who has had success in the retail industry that she loves.

Here though , let us poison Mary’s well so none may drink of her water now or in the future. It appears to be more important to demonize her and cast aspersion on her rather than seek the truth of what she did and why she did it.
But Mary is so yesterday news, isn’t she?
In Azerbaijan, the US ambassador was recalled to the US about a scandal involving prostitutes and visas to work in the US sex trade. A former translator for the embassy was killed and is somehow part of this story. Now I wonder if the ambassador was republican or democrat or if he visited any leftist web sites. THAT is the real story that is important, isn’t it? I wonder how the CIA missed this illegality and the FBI had to intervene; perhaps there was a whistleblower here. Darn liberal partisans at work again, I bet. I don’t even know if UPI vetted this story. They may have ulterior motives, too.
 
Written By: Dale
URL: http://
Occam’s Razor:

If she was caught through a tip off, it would make sense that they caught her source and they rolled over on her. Therefore, McQ, most likely they caught the small fry internal leak as well.

I think all the mention of political partisanship are relevant because they provide a potential MOTIVE.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I come here to learn what I do not know and perhaps to share what I have learned. Now I am stained a Daily Kos partisan and an Eschatonian. I assume this sets me up as untrustworthy or something less than others who are here. Without the right filters, I just cannot be accepted.
Well, unlike the others, I never viewed you as a Kossak or whatever. I thought you distilled the previous "arguments" pretty well.
Therefore, McQ, most likely they caught the small fry internal leak as well.
Well he or she should just as big in the news reports as McCarthy.
I think all the mention of political partisanship are relevant because they provide a potential MOTIVE.
Or not. It may be something else and all the politial partisanship may be a non-starter and it seems a little premature to claim otherwise.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
As with any ’crime’, people wonder about the motive...its’ human nature. Please note the word "potential." I put it there for a reason.

Therefore, McQ, most likely they caught the small fry internal leak as well.

Well he or she should just as big in the news reports as McCarthy.


Au contraire, if you roll over on the big fish, you usually get some benefits - like being put in a basement office sorting paperclips for the rest of your career.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Thanks, McQ.
 
Written By: Dale
URL: http://
The question, or rather dilemma, is can one be fired for whistleblowing if the subject revealed is classified?
For whistleblowing? No, probably not. Although you will probably never get promoted ever again. Or not. It’s the CIA after all. They probably have a "biggest leaker" medal and performance award.

For revealing classified information? Most certainly. Unless she’s the classification authority for that information, she has no authority to release it to anyone who doesn’t possess the proper security clearance and a need-to-know. In fact you can be incarcerated for it if the proper prerequisites are met. And this process is both legal and something she consented to when she took the job.

As several people point out, the proper thing to do would be to notify members of congress on the appropriate committees. Chances are they have the necessary security clearance and, based on your judgement, the need-to-know. Start with the ones of your favorite political persuasion and if that doesn’t work, get the other side involved too.

As for how she found out about it, I’m betting it has more to do with the internal approach to classified information at her agency or workplace. Some places define need-to-know a lot more broadly than others. Loose lips may sink ships but, if you stretch the analogy, people don’t generally worry about other sailors if they are on your boat.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Ok, so I am intemperate. Sorry for the hurt feelings. Well, this whole McCarthy thing really irks me off. I have always felt strongly about things like honor and duty and I react vociferously when I see people violate this sort of trust.

Perhaps people think this is a witch hunt for democrats and that poor Mary Contrary was caught and unjustly accused. I just don’t buy it.

She was an NIO for Warning (and held the deputy NIO for the same position) at one point in her career. She replaced Charlie Allen (a legend in the intel community) and given that appointment by Rand Beers. That is equivalent to a 4 star in the intel community. She went from entry level analyst to NIO in 12 years. That is like from Officer Cadet to 4 star general in 12 years. She must have been extremely good or really good at schmoozing.

The press is playing this as just another small analyst. Nope, she was the big fish.

The other thing that irks me off is that the rule on leaks seems:

damages Bush and the US: good leak
damages Bush Critic and media: bad leak

Anyone else think something is wrong with this or is it just me?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Jeff, she worked for IG which handles whistle blower complaints for the agency. If she didn’t know the procedure then no one did. Being at IG she would have had access to stuff like the prisons story.

And another thing, the realy shocking thing about this is where the leak occurred. The IG is supposed to the the oversight watchdog for proper behavior, judge-like. There must have been a tidal wave of shck in the intel community that this was where it happened. I would bet that there is a truly massive review and batten down the hatches activity going on at all the agencies in the backwash of this bombshell.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Washington Post: Dismissed CIA Officer Denies Leak Role

" senior intelligence official said the agency is not asserting that McCarthy was a key source of Priest’s award-winning articles last year disclosing the agency’s secret prisons."

" Intelligence sources said that the inspector general’s office was generally aware of a secret prison program but that McCarthy did not have access to specifics, such as prison locations."
 
Written By: katie
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider