Centerfield

She leaks, she gets caught, she should pay the price. Those are the rules.

Anyone have any thoughts on the rectitude of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe? Bottom line, are our democratic ideals real, or are they pretend, for the sake of PR? Should the CIAhave secret prisions? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'll concede their might be good reasons, but I hope they're better than the old "collect every scrap of intelligence by any means necessary" barrow that gets wheeled out whenever anyone complains that America is supposed to have ideals that it truly upholds.

OKay,.....I guess I'll serve up the fat pitch for all to hit...

I "assume" (like most) that every American has an obligation to inform the public when they have reason (evidence) to believe laws and our very Constitutional process are being violated and their superiors don't seem to care or are engaged in the dubious activities in question.

Soldiers are allowed to refuse orders when they think they violate human rights and human decency. Am I wrong? If such whistle blowing does not happen, how can Americans debate secret prisons our administration denies or illegal spying on domestic internet communications? This move will fuel the public perception that the administration breaks laws and fires those patriotically informing the media. And the irony considering the leaks issued from the White House.

I guess some here might argue perception isn’t important. Elections say it does.

This one is a tough one. It is whistle blower and at the same time a blatent breaking of signed pledge for the job. Dismissal is correct for violating the rules of the job. Hopefully, someone will be able to take care of her in the private sector for the stance she took in the public and standing up for her ethics.

I suspect the administration may try to push for charges. I would not support that. At the same time, if they don't, what is to say that someone for strictly political reasons start leaking things? This one is the grey area from hell. By the letter of the law, I think she is liable. By the ethics of what was done, I can not condemn her. I do not know if I would have had the guts to leak something like that and take the risk, myself.

There are proper ways to "Blow the whistle" and giving reporters classified information is not one of them. Its not a difficult concept, people in these jobs are trained on the proper way to handle issues like this, they have writen instructions and a legal department to advise them if they think something is illegal. This is a simple case of someone who was in a position of trust who broke the law and should be sent to prison. This is a serious criminal not a whistle blower. She is no different then Aldrich Ames or John Walker (navy type). They had different idiological reasons but committed the same crime.

As for secret prisons, maybe. In the short term, yes, prisons in a war zone are targets, and we can't bring them here because our legal system can't deal with the issues. Once Gitmo was created there is no longer a need for any "secret prisons" so no we should not have them.

Anyone else feeling awfully agnostic about the notion that if one wants to blow the whistle, one should go through proper channels?

Isn't that a little bit like saying that there's a proper time and place for spontaneity? I mean, doesn't one blow the whistle precisely due to the presumption that going through channels in a corrupt system is not effective?

Brian, the proper channels, which anticipated just that problem, includes a route to the Congressional oversight committees... If she was that sure it was wrong, then she could have gone to the Democratic members of those commitees to report the conduct. Ms. McCarthy is very familiar with Democarts, as she gave $2,000 to John Kerry's presidential campaign. Also, go and look how she initially denied that the intelligence supported Bill Clinton's decision to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Then Richard Clarke talked with her and convinced her to come around to the other side. This woman appears to be a political animal, one of the types that need to be weeded out of the CIA as fast as possible.

the proper channels, which anticipated just that problem, includes a route to the Congressional oversight committees... If she was that sure it was wrong, then she could have gone to the Democratic members of those commitees to report the conduct.

Right, and then all she has to do is assume (a)that this particular set of politicians will do right by her, and (b) that her identity will be kept unrevealed to protect her from repercussions.

Look, if she's little more than a political animal playing palace intrigue, I've no sympathy for her. But if I was in a sensitive postion and knew that something I considered to be deeply wrong was going on, I would myself strongly consider taking the expedited route of leaking to the press. I wouldn't necessarily expect to be protected should my leaking become known. But if I was sure the people really needed to know something, I'd lean towards whatever method raised the quickest and loudest stink...

In this case, since I'm not a fan of secret CIA prisions and how such practices reflect upon our alleged ideals, I'm left wondering whether we'd find out about this stuff without leaks. Even political animals can act in part from conscience. IMO, the people have a right to know about this sort of stuff...

There's no indication that she even made the effort to go through channels, Brian. You can't say (particularly when one is a big contributor to the other party) that "well, the system won't work, so I won't even bother". That's the coward's way out. She tried to leak and avoid the consequences of leaking. You can't decide that your employer was breaking the law in a major way but keep on working and enjoying the benefits provided by that employer, in good conscience.

By the by, the Europeans have conducted intensive reviews of the allegations of secret prisons, and have found no proof that they exist.

It's tough to know the details. If she did the right thing and tried to initially report the violations through the appropriate channels-- the CIA's chain of command, Congressional oversight panels, etc.-- then she can at least claim a moral victory, i.e., "I tried to handle it the right way, and was ignored, so my conscience required me to report it to the press."

On the other hand, if she didn't-- and there will be a paper trail to document it, either way-- then she's going to get nailed. Regardless of the political perceptions of this White House, it's not appropriate for federal bureaucrats to decide on their own what CLASSIFIED information is or is not appropriate for release to the public. If that were the standard, then we'll see a LOT more Jonathan Pollards-- i.e., guys/gals disclosing information for ideological, political, or personal motives. That would be a very, very bad thing for national security.

We need to let the system play out on this one, and see what happened.

There's no indication that she even made the effort to go through channels, Brian. You can't say (particularly when one is a big contributor to the other party) that "well, the system won't work, so I won't even bother".

I see no reason whatsoever to think this is true in any sort of blanket way. The only person in a good position to judge whether going through channels is worthwhile is the person in position to know how those channels work. Whistleblowing often occurs outside channels for VERY obvoius and sound reasons. Period.

And most ludicrously, if "channels" were actively trying to cover up some secret operation, then OF COURSE there wouldn't be any evidence that someone tried to go through channels.

By the by, the Europeans have conducted intensive reviews of the allegations of secret prisons, and have found no proof that they exist.

Which Europeans? When? How "intensive?" Even presuming this is true it could mean, as you suggest, that they never existed, or it could mean that we did a good job keeping them secret for a change. Granted, that's a hard one to believe.

Very well said, Bobby. I guess I'm pretty much of the same mind right now.

If Bush tries to presecute the "public perception" will be that he thinks it is okay for White House leaking for partisan gain, but a no-no for leakers damaging the partisan cause.

I agree with Bobby (I left you a remark on the "General" thread bringing up more "public perception" problems). Did she approach Biden or others with some clout, first? Are senators liable for turning in such "leakers"? I wonder why she didn't try to get some "whistle-blower status before allowing information to be used in a book.

Brian, here is one story on the EU investigations.

Bobby is certainly correct that we cannot form definitive judgments until all the facts come out, as the undoubtedly will at her trial.

We are omitting from this analysis whether the "secret prisons" if they actually existed, were in fact illegal. I'm certain that there were at least some CIA lawyers who would review any such action and sign off with an opinion that it was legal. Thus, disclosure on grounds of "whistleblowing" would involve a difference of legal opinion as to the legality of the program. So we will need to ask what steps did she take to investigate the legal issues? Did she do legal research? Consult an agency lawyer, or any outside lawyer?

How did she know about the program? How certain was she of the details? Had she just heard generally about it, or did she participate in it?

Leaking classified information does great damage to not only our government but also places at risk our soldiers and impacts deeply our relations with our allies. If she had picked up the phone and called Osama Bin Laden to tell him about this practice, we would all agree she needed to be imprisoned. To me, telling the press is no different. She told Osama plus hundreds of millions of other people at the same time. She has no right to make those decisions for herself.

The Washington Post has a pretty good article on the story, with interviews with a good number of former CIA employees. Even the ones sympathetic to McCarthy, or opposed to some Bush Administration policies, seem to agree that the proper route to go is NOT to leak to the press, regardless of the temptation. Several expressed particular concern if the leaks were based on information she learned because of her job in the inspector general's office.

Even the ones sympathetic to McCarthy, or opposed to some Bush Administration policies, seem to agree that the proper route to go is NOT to leak to the press, regardless of the temptation.

And as we know, if several people from within the organization seem to agree, then they must be right. There's no reason to think that other people who work or have worked for the CIA would be biased towards working within organizational channels.

Here's another puzzler that came up for me regarding suggestions that the prisons may not have existed. If they don't exist and didn't exist, then what would be the classified information that was leaked and which this woman allegedly got fired for? If there isn't some true information that got leaked, then what's the firing offense? Presumedly if you told a tale which didn't turn out to be true, then you couldn't have leaked classified information, unless of course you leaked other true information in the course of telling the tale, like the name of an agent.

Or can you get fired for leaking information that you thought was classified, on the basis of malicious intent? I'd say yeah, you could get fired, but the offense couldn't be leaking classified info if it wasn't true.

Well, then this thread of objectivity has once again come up with the right solution.

There should be a Congressional office where bi-partisan leaders hear the leaker’s claims and evidence first. This group cannot leak and should take the same lie detector tests they allow on CIA employees. Give temporary immunity to source provided the leak stays in committee.. Then the Intelligence heads can supply counter information to refute the leak. If the majority of senators are not convinced of their counterclaims, then “whistle blower” status is conferred to the leaker and the committee is free to pass information to press or extend secrecy on the matter until intelligence heads can supply more rebuttal data. This process should be clear, bi-partisan and secure enough to keep vital information secret. I am sure something like this already exists. Yes?

Imagine the intelligence leak that mini nukes were being deployed on attack aircraft near Iran, or another leak that showed evidence of Russia shielding the transfer of missiles from Belarus to Iran. In both cases, there are very serious reasons for and against leaking. It must in the end be a bi-partisan call and not something thrown into the interpretation of the War Power Resolution or Global Strike. Or of course, individuals can come forward regardless of the consequence to their own ass. That is real patriotism the public can always demand pardon for later on.

The public problem is not about secrecy per se. As I said before, if the EXECUTIVE goes after this leaker, "public perception" focuses not on the damage to the US (if the illegality is true and the prisons exist) but rather on Bush leaking for political leverage and his opponents prosecuted for partisan retribution.

Soldiers are allowed to refuse orders when they think they violate human rights and human decency. Am I wrong?

Yes, Max, you're wrong. American soldiers are required (and swear to) obey all lawful orders of their superior officers. In some cases, an order to violate civil rights or "human decency" can be a perfectly lawful order, and in some case they might be unlawful orders. They are overlapping non-congruent sets. A soldier should be Real Damn Sure about illegality before defying an order. Willful insubordination is a serious offense, and guessing wrong isn't much of a defense at the court martial.

As I pointed out, this is NOT a low-level leaker. WaPo and NYT have somewhat downplayed her status, calling her an "analyst." McCarthy was a Top Dog in the CIA, a senior National Intelligence Officer, and the Director of Intelligence Programs for the Clinton NSC. She was demoted out of that major position on the NSC team when the new admin came in, went to work with Zoe Baird at the Markle Foundation and with Wesley Clark and Tony Zinni at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Then she came back to the CIA and worked in the very office that investigates allegations, the CIA Inspector General. And began leaking to the press. There is ZERO chance that she did not know how to take legitimate concerns to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who the sympathetic players would be, etc. There is ZERO chance that she had no other avenues for exposing things. She appears to have knowingly stepped outside of the system, for whatever reason, to leak classified info to a journalist who is married to the head of the anti-war Center for International Policy.

If you were to investigate CIA leaks based on the single premise that the leaks were part of an organized political effort to undermine and discredit the Bush administration, then based on political connections and associations McCarthy would be at the head of the list of suspects within the CIA. She was pushed out of her NSC position by the new admin, she's a protege of Beers and Clarke and Berger. Etc.

Of note is that the "rendition" game was given official status based on a Memorandum of Notification signed by Clinton in December 1999. The author of that MON appears to have been McCarthy. She seems to have created the document that authorized "rendition" in the first place.

For the political spectators who love a circus, this is gonna be fun. We don't have nearly enough info to go on yet, but at first glance it looks very bad, both legally for McCarthy and politically for certain Democrats. I don't see how she can avoid indictment. And expect the other leak investigations to produce more results.

Tully,
I was obviously referring to orders that "reasonably" violate human rights and decency. Would using phosphorus to burn out insurgent strongholds with clear evidence of civilian presence qualify for leaking or even refusal to comply? Would bombing a hospital in which “suspects” were hiding qualify? Would using mini nukes for pre-emption against a city where a "suspected" bunker was buried qualify? Please comment on what our officers can refuse to do within the criteria of human rights violations, Congressional law and human decency? What are "good leaks" or "refusal to follow orders" Billy Budd not withstanding.

One can render without secret prisons. How does lying about these prisons help our cause? And what laws govern the treatment of those rendered? If there is evidence of human rights violation in those prisons would disclosing their existence be allowable under whistle blowing? Did Clinton authorize carting "suspects" off to Syria of all places for law-violating interrogation? Did his policy suspend indefinitely habeas corpus or the use of torture?

I understand the links you pointed out to anti-war group. I too, did not rush to defend the manner of the leak -considering the legal channels that apparently went untried. While she may have illegally leaked this info for political reasons as opposed to using "proper" channels, you did not address the obvious public reaction in the game that will likely follow. Public perception (with Bush poll numbers near 37%) will clearly read this as Bush going after embarrassing partisan leaks used against him to refute his administration's statements, while he clings to dubious reasons as to why his administration has leaked other information (for partisan goals?). Don’t you think “public perception” has any important place here and abroad? Read today’s AP about Russia’s slow slide into secrecy.

Also, does a clear Congressional channel exist with a bi-partisan nature that would make this leaking more controllable? I don’t think Lugar, McCain or Hagel were thrilled about secret prisons and what goes on there. Some Republicans have called Klein a hero.

Do you suggest that a CIA agent should not feel the compulsion to bring to the immediate attention of Congress plans for the pre-emptive use of nukes? How about spying by the NSA that violates law or military policies abroad that violate the Geneva Convention? Are these cases for patriotic leaking? I keep thinking of the officer who recently died who leaked the Mali massacre. I consider him a true hero as those who encouraged him to speak up.

OK, I'm more than willing to recognize that this leak could have been based on honest concerns about illegal actions, but I think Pat's right. There are proper channels to do this, and even if there was no other way, you have to face the penalties if you're going to make a move like this.

If she's a politically interested hack, then she gets no sympathy. The usual political suspects will have a field day with this. She'll never work in this town again.

As for the secret prisons, I've not completely made up my mind, but we can't bring them here, and we need secrecy. What's to be done?

I was obviously referring to orders that "reasonably" violate human rights and decency.

Excuse me, Max? The oath is to obey all lawful orders, not to quibble with officers in the field about nebulous concepts of "reasonable" human "rights and decency." You brought it up, YOU define it. Be aware that for the ordinary trooper, refusing to obey an order on such grounds had better be pretty damn clear-cut, or they're risking time in Leavenworth, or at least a BCD. And it's not even peripheral to McCarthy's crime, but an entirely seperate argument. Conflation.

Expanding the field and shotgunning situations is complete nonsense as relates to McCarthy. We're speaking of specific allegations of violating her employment terms AND "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information"--allegations which, according to the NYT and other media, McCarthy has confessed to. I believe that could get her ten years. (Had she released it directly to a foreign government, that potential penalty goes radically up to include the death penalty.)

She has NO (legal) excuse. She was part of the CIA IG's office, and had to know full well that she had an unrestricted right to petition Congress or any member thereof, or to provide info to either or both houses thereof, or with her own office. And that the law bars any retailiation against someone who uses those completely legal avenues to report violations. Every person who gets a security clearance gets briefed on this. Copiously. And signs that agreement, or goes somewhere else to work. There's no "justifiable press leak" provision.

I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952, and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

gee I wonder if Karl Rove or Libby signed that?

Well. let's wait and see what she was alleged to have disclosed that was classified, or do we not get to know, because it was classified. I'm still puzzling over how these alleged secret camps could be classified if they didn't exist. That might leave the admin with a catch-22 in that if they want people to believe they didn't exist, all they cqn really do is broom the leaker out the door as quietly as possible.

Has their been word of further measures beyond firing?

Yep, they did, Marcus. And guess what? Investigated thoroughly by a special prosecutor, and no violations of said statutes found.

Brian, I'd note that "rendition" itself is a classified program. Maybe not the existence of it, but certainly the operational details. McCarthy would know all about rendition--as I noted, internal evidence in the 9/11 Commission report indicates that she wrote the Clinton MON that officially authorized CIA renditions, back in '99. Her baby from Day One. This apparently wasn't a single leak, or a single story. Sounds like an ongoing process of leakage, beginning with her return to the CIA from that stint with CSIS and Markle. And she went into the CIA IG's office, doubtless on the strength of her clearance and previous NSC credentials, as the IG pokes into everything. It's entirely circumstantial at this point, but any serious investigator's hindbrain is screaming "MOLE!" at him about now.

Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from "a pattern of conduct" and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post.

Her political donations didn't begin at all until 2002, and weren't significant until 2004. I checked, going back to 1980. And I gotta say that a $5K donation to a crucial swing state party that wasn't her state, coming from a government employee with no previous track record of significant political donations, certainly is a red flag for either pass-through donation laundering or party-coordinated donations. Her bank records are about to undergo some serious scrutiny, I bet. Be interseting to see how much in "honorariums" she got from Markle, and when.

"Speaking on condition of anonymity." Ya gotta love it. My rough guess would be that this particular story was what gave them the narrowed focus to track her down as the source, but that her leaking was not restricted to it. We don't know yet.

She is no different then [sic] Aldrich Ames

Excuse me, but Ames divulged the names of American operatives who subsequently died due to his treachery. Has any American agent's identity been divulged, and thus personal security compromised, as a result of McCarthy's actions?

yet...

Both Walker and Ames worked directly for the Soviet Union. I'd say there's a definite difference between intentionally leaking classified national security info to the American press, and in leaking it directly to our enemiesas as a de facto "foreign agent" spy. But both are reprehensible--and criminal.

Has any American agent's identity been divulged, and thus personal security compromised, as a result of McCarthy's actions?

From the sketchy info so far available, not that we know of, Scott. But if McCarthy's leaks included this one to Dana Priest, then the answer would be an unequivocal "Yes." And you've gotta admit that McCarthy looks like the number one suspect for that right now. "A pattern of conduct..."

But we still don't have enough info to say.

"Don’t you think “public perception” has any important place here and abroad?"

Max, it certainly does...but it has absolutely no place in our Criminal Justice System. If a person violated the law they need to be prosecuted...it doesn't matter whether they are publicaly sympathetic...or such a prosecution would be unpopular or make the government look bad. If there are extenuating circumstances to justify that persons actions then let a Jury make that determination....after hearing all the evidence. Our criminal justice system is supposed to be above politics, right?

Secondly, re-read what Tully wrote. Soldiers are obligated to carry out all lawfully given orders. If an order is not lawfull (which may or may not have anything to do with "human rights" or "decency") then, according to the UCMJ, they may refuse to carry it out...... but that's the extent of it. Furthermore any soldier that refuses to carry out an order KNOWS they are putting thier career (and possibly thier freedom) on the line. They had better be damn certain the order was illegal....and they should fully expect to have to explain that position in front of a Court Martial.

Basicly, if you are really certain that something is the Right thing to do.... then you do it.... but you also accept the consequences for doing it...which can also include falling on your sword if you can't convince others of the rightness of what you've done.

Again, all that is entirely tangential to McCarthy who is not a soldier and is not subject to the UCMJ. On the surface, what she did smacks more of politics then conscience.... but I'm not going to rush to prejudge. If she violated the law then she should be prosecuted....and a jury of her peers can decide whether circumstances excuse her actions. Even so, if she knew the material she was leaking was classified she should expect to loose her job. You don't take it upon yourself to leak Classified material to the press and expect to keep your job in National Security (the same should apply to Rove and Libby, IF they actualy did that).

Tully:

I wasn't referring to anything you wrote. I was referring to Bernie. Whatever one thinks of your position, Bernie clearly made a stronger statement.

As for leaking false names and the identity of a plane used in the intelligence service, I would agree that there is no public justification for divulging it--the Post could referred to "that Gulfstream V." However, that still is far short of identifying the identity of a human agent. One, revealing it to the public means that the government finds out whenever our enemies do. This means that it could be retired to domestic service and another small jet substituted for the function. To truly be comparable would require leaking information that could realistically be used to obtain the real identity of an actual agent.

None of this is a reflection on anything said previously that is short of a comparison between McCarthy and Ames.

Tully,
As I stated, it appears that most here have reached the same conclusion. The leak in question may have been put out into the media illegally. We must wait to see where this will lead. That doesn’t keep the question of how nonexistent prisons are classified. My shot gunning asked questions that are related to this topic. Do you suggest starting a different thread? Was I interrupting a argument of some sort?

1. What are the legal channels for someone in the CIA leaking information they deem is contrary to stated policies and inconsistent with law (the leaker may not be a legal expert)? I used as a fictious example evidence showing us preparing for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against civilian-encircled bunkers in Iran. Even secret prisons are a reasonable example and most likely not fictious. This question has to do with “whistle-blowing” and is a necessary behavior in a free society that requires public informed debate.

2. What are the constraints on officers who observe or are asked to participate in behavior that reasonably contradicts declared policy (no torture, no use of phosphorus as a weapon etc..). I thought one of the lessons of Viet Nam was for officers to speak up. This isn’t leaking, but it does relate to the “legal” channels for individuals with heavy obligations to follow orders and rules to object or “third party” reasonably “illegal” behavior. I thought it an appropriate question to ask although you are right that it is some distance from the leak in question. I thought you would have a good answer.

3. I think “public perception” is related to the topic here, although indirectly. Public perception does not figure into existing laws or protocol. I understand that. Whatever the outcome in this case, one can be sure that the public reaction will be to see Bush leaking for partisan gain (on some occasions) and enforcement of law against other leakers as retribution rather than upholding the law. Washington has been leaking for decades. Some experts consider a certain amount of leaking vital to informed debate. I did not see many here talk about the administration's denying secret prisons in Europe while the leaked information contradicts this. Isn’t this a relevant point to discuss on this thread? There is abundant evidence for this administration's manipulating intelligence and leaking when it serves their partisan purpose. This contextual reality was the creation of this administration and not the result of opposition politics.

4. Did Clinton authorize subjecting those “suspects” rendered to violations of human rights and indefinite suspension of habeas corpus? I think your earlier remarks suggested the present situation is somehow created by Clinton. Can you specify the differences between what Clinton authorized and what Bush has conducted? Even under the War Power Resolution here

I doubt there is much legal ground in such resolution for intelligence operations outside the power of Congress to control or review when such activities appear to violate US and international law. Is whistle blowing protection aimed at encouraging disclosures of “perceived” abuse of power? Am I wrong?

5. I am also curious. If one of Calley’s men threatened to shoot him in order to prevent human rights abuses, would that have been permissible? Does everyone here agree that Henderson (who recently died) and those that encouraged him were right in coming forward and that they were heros? Most of these questions and points do stem from the leak in question. I didn’t mean to side track discussion but to add relevant connections to related topics.

To truly be comparable would require leaking information that could realistically be used to obtain the real identity of an actual agent.

It reveals everyone associated with it who can be tracked, Scott, so in that sense it's somewhat comparable. Not that the statute requires that agents be exposed. It doesn't--but it's a different statute.

The difference between what Ames and Walker did, and what McCarthy has apparently confessed to, is simple. One leaked classified national security info to the press, apparently for domestic political reasons. The other two actively worked as agents for foreign governments. "Spies." It's the diff between leaking and treason.

My shot gunning asked questions that are related to this topic.

In the sense that they were in English and somewhat regarded speculative matters pertaining to national security, yes. Otherwise, no, not really. Only in the sense that humans are "related to" apes.

Though you could have found this in about twenty seconds using Google, which should answer the one question actually related to the "justifiability" defenses being offered for McCarthy. Who is apparently busy denying everything today, via her old buddy, Rand Beers.

I think if I were McCarthy I'd have picked a different spokesman.

Tully, one of the more amusing aspects of all of the CIA-related stories the past few years is watching the hard-core left stand up for career CIA employees, and the CIA generally, who were responsible for policies which those same leftists normally would revile them for. PDS makes for strange bedfellows, eh?

This is a bit of a double standard. Bernie, I agree with you--they should handle in proper channels, but if nothing's done regarding something you clearly see as morally wrong, don't you have a responsibility to do "whatever it takes" to resolve the issue?

At this point, we don't know anything illegal has been done, BUT.. we have overwhelming cause for concern. I'm wondering how many leaks it will take before people start demanding a REAL investigation. It's the centrist choice, between ignoring overwhelming cause for alarm and pushing for impeachment without enough evidence.

"Only in the sense that humans are "related to" apes."

What do I expect from someone who asked Rick "why"? Tully, you’re lucky I didn’t fill that thread with links you could Google in ten seconds. Is this a personal blog site for you, or was it helpful to the "public" for you to link the “disclosure” rules? I will have to read it again and see if my examples were answered. Thanks Tully and I don't think the War Power Resolution covers much of this executive’s decrees. Do you?

And Pat we could talk about some real strange bedfellows on the Right, couldn't we?

JP, a number of "ape-related" questions were asked. I guess we will have to wait for Bobby to hear some reasonable answers or suggestions to questions like "how are Bush denied prison classified if they really don't exist"? I do get the feeling some here are towing a more right-sided line and often avoid questions that don’t fit their view..

Sure does, Pat. Law of the Instrument, and the corrolary.

This is a bit of a double standard. Bernie, I agree with you--they should handle in proper channels, but if nothing's done regarding something you clearly see as morally wrong, don't you have a responsibility to do "whatever it takes" to resolve the issue?

JP, McCarthy was in the IG's office, and if you follow the link I provided you would quickly fnd that there are multiple avenues for whistleblowers, including utilizing the very office McCarthy was working for, that she was high up in. McCarthy's record indicates that she has no excuse for NOT knowing the available avenues, that she had copious access to same, and there is zero evidence she attempted to use them. Everyone who has ever signed one of those agreements is well aware of both the available avenues for reporting illegalities and misconduct, and the repercussions of stepping outside of them and violating the employment agreement and the statutes. There's simply no justification.

As I noted, we're a bit short on definitive info at this point, other than that she was dismissed for blatant cause (unauthorized contacts) and that she is alleged to have passed classified info to unauthorized persons in a "pattern of conduct."

By all means, let's investigate all those leaks. The oath is supposed to mean something. The laws are supposed to mean something. A much less serious allegation drew a special prosecutor a while back. Yet we have our major foreign intelligence service apparently attempting to interfere in our domestic politics via the press. Where's the investigation?

What do I expect from someone who asked Rick "why"? Tully, you’re lucky I didn’t fill that thread with links you could Google in ten seconds.

Max, you're lucky I don't delete your posts out of sheer annoyance at your persistent density. For example, you kinda missed that it wasn't Rick I asked that question of (it was Rafique) or that I didn't badger him in his own thread with a laundry list of nonsensical and completely peripheral questions when he didn't answer it.

Max,

I guess we will have to wait for Bobby to hear some reasonable answers or suggestions to questions like "how are Bush denied prison classified if they really don't exist"?

There's a few ways that could happen. I don't know precisely how the CIA conducts their business, but I imagine it's somewhat similar to us in that all programs and plans are classified during the planning phase (what we call the Military Decision Making Process, or MDMP). The reason for that is obvious-- if you don't classify something during the planning process, people will already know that it exists when it comes time to implement.

So, hypothetically-speaking, if we had ever planned or wargamed any kind of operation-- and that in the course of that planning we determined that it might be a good thing to build secret prisons in Europe-- then these secret prisons (that didn't even exist yet) would be classified (probably at the TS // SCI level). If, when it came time to execute, or even just later in the MDMP (during course of action analysis, for example), someone in the chain of command determined that these secret prisons were a bad idea, that there was no funding, or that they violated some statute, or if say the host nation rejected the proposal, then the secret prisons-- which were never even built-- would remain classified, at least until the entire plan went through its de-classification process (which presumably would not be for quite some time, since other aspects of the plan would be being currently implemented).

Again, not being in the inside of the CIA, but having worked with their operatives extensively in Kabul, I can only hypothesize that they do their business something like this (actually, I know they start their classification in the planning process, but everyone does that). I could probably think about a few other scenarios on why a "secret European prison" that doesn't even exist might still be classified information.

Tully,
Perhaps you might explain to what degree one can venture from the original thread. You appear to desire unraveling a partisan plot by the Left in this leak instead of considering the ramifications to Republicans if the leak is true.

As I said before, it seemed early on in this post that most here came to the same conclusion. I merely asked some related questions because I think they go to the issue of how the public is reading the various leaks going back to Wilson. Where else might one ask all you bright people about possible scenarios concerning "leaking"?

You made some statements about a soldier's risky refusal to comply and I asked if you think Henderson and others were right. What is your base line for non-compliance, shooting civilians, certain uses of phosphorus? No, do not answer that. I think you miss what I am getting at.

The public did not create the fiasco in Iraqi prisons nor did they write legal opinions that led to this situation and McCain's response. As far as density goes, perhaps you should have an entrance exam here. Then you can give me an F and send me to remedial blogging. Dozens of NYC doctors, engineers, police officers, nurses, retailers, etc. I have conversed with over the last few weeks have expressed similar questions to the ones that I asked here. They have heard about some "changes" at the CIA by Goss and have read numerous reports of intelligence and administration activities that seem to violate law or unusually extend executive powers. Bush is sinking in the polls and trust is a major issue. The public does not seem to trust Bush these days and that is hardly because of Democratic opposition. This new leak (actually old), despite the “law” will play into this partisan context.

Blaming Clinton won't work this time. Who did Clinton authorize to torture, who did he render? What phone companies did Clinton plug the NSA into? Did Clinton authorize spying on domestic internet traffic? Did we need leaks to know what Clinton was doing? Oopss..If such extended questioning is frowned upon here please post some rules....

Bobby,
Thank you for the explanation. We are not all as bright as Tully. The gist of my questions concerned the effectiveness of "whistle-blowing" protection and channeling in encouraging those with seemingly important disclosures to inform a bi-partisan Congress. If an intelligence officer knew of preparations to pre-empt Iran with nukes, could he march into Biden's office and spill the beans to him? Or the release of pathogens on the public to test the effects or response? The public fear is that if leaks are stopped -especially when they draw out hidden and critical contradictions between an administration's words and deeds, we might not know of “illegal or suspect” activities until it is too late to intercede. We certainly can't have an informed debate. We want our officers to uphold the Constitution and established US and international law (Geneva Convention). They should be confident that Congress will back them up should they observe and reveal real violations of law. Does Klein fit this category in the NSA leak? I don’t know what Tully would consider a good leak. The Libby leak?

If there really are/were secret prisons while the administration declares there are not (Congress as well), isn't this grounds for leaking into the right channels? I’m not talking about strategic bluffing, I’m talking about stated policy and law v reality on the ground when they are in apparent and "classified" contradiction.

While Tully alluded to Clinton’s original authorization of rendering, does "rendering" imply subjecting "suspects" to torture (which some claim happened) and detention duration purely at the discretion of interrogators? There has been much in the media for more than a year concerning these matters. In one case, we had a Canadian rendered to Syria (CBS 60 minutes). I have heard many professionals here in NYC sum it up like this: it seems we render "suspects", ship them off to secret prisons to interrogate them with no due process or even a record of their incarceration. Americans do not like this.
The president responds to the loud objections and says these stories are simply not true (despite public flight information and records) and then this leak. It goes to the heart of trust. Maybe it is better for Bush to stand by "rendering" if it is necessary. Give it some oversight and don't further degrade the support we need from our allies by shipping the rendered to their backyard. Just a dense, yet pervasive thought from NYC.

Perhaps you might explain to what degree one can venture from the original thread.

Max, I've done so several times in several threads. It doesn't seem to penetrate. Why not try avoiding tangential hypotheticals, and directly addressing whatever the thread is actually about? Which would be a senior CIA officer, formerly a high-ranking NSC staffer, blatantly violating her terms of employment and (apparently) repeatedly leaking classified national security material to the press.

It's a real situation, and we have real information about the real person accused that closes off almost all of your hypotheticals out of hand. There are multiple avenues available for whistleblowers--she didn't use them. That would seem to close off all the "justifiability" excuses.

But I do enjoy the attempt to spin McCarthy's sins as the administration's fault. They're not. They're McCarthy's. I'm very interested in finding out what actually happened. It's been obvious for some time that elements of the CIA have been actively leaking selected info to the press for the apparent purpose of affecting domestic politics. Now it seems that one of those elements may have been caught in the act, and that's quite interesting indeed.

Tully,
I'm not really that dense. I just see so many threads connected to this single case. I have refrained from just stepping into your lively debates and shot gunning. I want to hear what your group of “centrists” thinks about the related issues. I thought I sensed a lull....LOL

As far as this leak, there are different opinions What me? The earlier leaks seemed to center on the administration’s ignoring some CIA Iraqi reports and over at The Counsel on Foreign Relations we all know the recent article on manipulating data prior to the Iraq invasion. Leaks notwithstanding, I am not suggesting using a rock instead of a hammer to drive in partisan nails.

No one here questioned using legal channels. I was asking your take on what issues would reasonably prompt a patriotic officer or agent to "whistle blow" given the unprecedented interpretation of the War Powers Resolution as opposed to the Constitutional requirement to obey the laws of Congress and international treaties approved by Congress. Shall I quote the article in question? I would rest better tonight if you had simply said, if anyone sees something that ain't Kosher there is abundant ways to get the information to either Congressional Party heads without fearing retribution or prosecution. I would have felt great if you had also said it is the patriotic duty for all government employees to uphold human rights, international treaties and US law and consider their contracts secondarily. Perhaps, I am a bit idealistic.

In the future, I will try to separate “related issues” from direct on-topic replies to make it easier. Since I am not an expert or endowed with much insider knowledge, my "thinking" often seeks connections between a range of facts(?) to draw inferences. The public is forced to do this every day.

Geez...first I have to be polite and then focused on a single narrow topic using fully vetted facts? The MSM never told me it was going to be so hard keeping an eye on you. They don’t pay me that much…….

P.S. And yes Tully, my link was another reference to your Newsweek link......from one of your favorite papers.

A few interesting links from the web that I believe are on topic (Rice link is a stretch but it does pertain to the dynamics of prosecution and the effect on public perception as we approach the election cycle)

Greenwald
Stacey Beam of Mass.
Off-topic leak rumor with possible bearing on the claim of administration "double standard".
European concern for treaty obligations regarding rendition and torture

Yawn. Thank you for the ample demonstration that you're determined to find some way, ANY way, to excuse McCarthy and change the subject.

I have to be polite and then focused on a single narrow topic using fully vetted facts? The MSM never told me it was going to be so hard keeping an eye on you. They don’t pay me that much……

Don't feel bad. Unka Karl never has sent those dancing girls and briefcases full of cash I was promised.

LOL Tully,
Thanks for your tolerance. This might be a better advocate for improved channels of dissent:

a somewhat centrist view on the state of leaking

Dancing girls? Sandy promises us all a ride on Xanu 1.

Advice: Hold out for passes to the Press Club dinner. The comedy's amateur, but the food and drinks are good.....

Skylar Deangelo Garrison Arturo Gino Luis