Mary Mc Carthy is the now former CIA employee who worked in the CIA inspector general's office--an office formed to look into the actions of disreptutable agents among other things--
who now admits to having unauthorized [read leaked] contacts with Dana Priest of the Washington Post among other reporters. It is believed, but disputed by her friends, that Mc Carthy handed over info and/or reports to Priest ostensibly showing that the US was running secret prisons holding Al Qaeda big wigs. Apparently holding Al Qaeda big wigs in prison is bad. That they're secret is apparently bad, too. An oath to secrecy and ten year sentence if you tell secrets notwithstanding, apparently secrecy is a not so dearly held commodity at spook central.
Dana Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for her stories on the secret prisons last week. (See this article here about the general theme running through the Pulitizer selection process here.)
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page weighs in today. The case of Ms. McCarthy appears to be as egregious as it gets as a matter of partisan politics. She played a prominent role in the Clinton national security apparatus and public records show she gave $2,000 to John Kerry's Presidential campaign and even more to the Democratic Party. Such is her right. But rather than salute and help implement policy after her candidate lost, she apparently sought to damage the Bush Administration by canoodling with the press.
Christopher Hitchens weighs in here:
There is little doubt that the Washington Post story on alleged prisons in Europe has done enormous damage--at a minimum, to our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don't want their assistance to be exposed. Likewise, the New York Times wiretapping exposé may have ruined one of our most effective anti-al Qaeda surveillance programs. Ms. McCarthy denies being the source of these stories. But somebody inside the intelligence community was.But now, instead of being rewarded
for her probity, Mary McCarthy has been given the sack. And the New York
Times rushes to her aid, with a three-hankie story on April 23, moistly titled "Colleagues Say Fired CIA Analyst Played by the Rules." This is only strictly true if she confined her disagreement to official channels, as she did when she wrote to
Clinton in 1998. Sadly enough, the same article concedes that McCarthy may have lied and then eventually told the truth about having unauthorized contact with members of the press.
Well! In that case the remedy is clear. A special counsel must be appointed forthwith, to discover whether the CIA has been manipulating the media. All civil servants and all reporters with knowledge must be urged to comply, and to produce their notes or see the inside of a jail. No effort must be spared to discover the leaker. This is, after all, the line sternly proposed by the New York Times and many other media outlets in the matter of the blessed Joseph Wilson and his martyred CIA spouse, Valerie Plame.
Here's Hitchens later on the McCarthy analog to Wilson/Plame:
One can argue that national security is damaged by unauthorized leaks, or one can argue that democracy is enhanced by them. But one cannot argue, in the case of a man who says that his CIA wife did not send him to Niger, that the proof that his wife did send him to Niger must remain a state secret. If one concerned official can brief the press off the record, then so can another.
A campaign that furthermore invokes the most reactionary law against disclosure this century: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? It was obvious from the first that the press, in taking Wilson and Plame at their own estimation, was fashioning a rod for its own back. I await the squeals that will follow when this rod is applied, which it will be again and again.See Hitchens' whole article here.
Here is his reportage of the Niger meetings which Joe Wilson makes light of here and here.
Thomas Josecelyn connects the Mary McCarthy dots here.
Check out this conversation with the WaPo ombudsman here that is quite illuminating.
22 comments:
Libby was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements, not for leaking.
Mary O. McCarthy denies leaking any classified information.
McCarthy was fired because the CIA concluded that she had undisclosed contacts with journalists, in violation of a security agreement. That does not mean she revealed classified information.
If McCarthy is to be prosecuted, the administration certainly has that option. Let’s see what it does.
I don't get the thrust of this blog at all. Why is a special prosecutor necessary when the Justice Department could prosecute and has prosecuted employees of the CIA for wrongdoing.
The only reason for the special prosecutor in the Scooter Libby matter was the perceived conflict of interest in the Justice Department investigating and/or prosecuting a WHite House official. In fact it was Ashcroft's deputy that appointed Fitzgerald. No such conflict here.
Who is being blamed for not prosecuting McCarthy? The Bush administration should be the one and only.
I don't get the thrust of this blog at all.
What do you expect from a blog owner who openly supports Google in their leftist efforts to portray the President as a "miserable failure?"
(sic)
threlfeld,
Lets see did she have motive, means and opportunity.
Means - unauthorized contacts with media.
motive - democratic supporter (normally not considered a motive except for the current political climate.) Possibly would liked to embarass the Administration once again and or disagreed with Administration policies.
Opportunity - Access to classified information that appeared in media articles.
Nah that does not mean she leaked classified information. It does mean that she is suspect number 1 though.
Remember she had been at the CIA for sometime and was well aware of the work rules.
Kodiak,
I am not defending McCarthy, merely drawing a distinction with Libby. Talk is cheap. If what you say is true, then you should be upset with the administration if it does not charge and prosecute.
I am waiting, watching and will be upset if they do nothing.
Libby was indicted for leaking. That was the point. Fitzgerald didn't find he leaked...just that he reported two different stories to reporters and therefore was indicted for perjuring himself. Remember now, Fitzgerald never answered the question of whether it was illegal to out Valerie Plame. I think it would have been useful of him to answer the question 'was she covert.' It's apparent, however, that by not answering the question overtly he deduced she wasn't covert and therefore no crime was committed, hence that's why Libby wasn't indicted for 'outing' her. She had already been well known inside the beltway by most Wasington reporters (re: Andrea Mitchell et al), just like they all know Mary Mc Carthy.
Ms Taft:
Contrary to the statement you make in your first sentence, Mr. Libby was not indicted for leaking information. As threlfeld correctly stated, Mr. Libby was indicted for perjury, making flase statements to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice. Mr. Libby ws several times summoned before a grand jury. As a witness before the grand jury, he was required to take an oath, just as any witness in a regular trial, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He gave inconsistent testimony, which indicated that he was not being truthful, and that is the basis for Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment. By the way, statements to reporters, despite the best wishes of reporters, are not necessarily under oath, so that no matter how many inconsistent accounts he gave to reporters, he could not be charged with perjury. (Otherwise, God help presidential press secretaries!)
As to you claims comments regarding Mr. Fitzgerald answering questions regarding the "covert" status of Valerie Plame, how is a special prosecutor duty bound to disclose matters such as those you have mentioned? While it may be matter ripe for speculation, you comments are no more than that, speculation. As to whether Ms Plame's status as a covert CIA operative was or was not known in Washington, D.C., the law makes it a felony to disclose the identity of certain CIA operatives, and Valerie Plame was such an operative. And as I read it, the statute does not contain any exception for disclosing confidential material which journalists from other parts of the country after the fact find it convenient to claim was already known.
Finally, concerning your comment that all of the reporters inside the beltway know Mary McCarthy, do you have some authority for that statement, or is it merely an ad hominem remark?
westsidedavid,
You are only partially correct. The law protects CIA operatives that are undercover and overseas within the past 5 years in this case prior to 2003.
There is no evidence that Valerie Plame was overseas within 5 years prior to the so called leak. If she does not meet the criteria as specified in that law then revealing her as working at the CIA would not be a crime.
Fitzgerald has not made any known determination of Plame's covert status so far. Novak says that Fitzgerald knows who supposedly leaked her name.
So far no indictments for leaking.
The “five-year period” is only part of one narrow statute. In fact, there are other laws banning disclosure of classified information under which the leak of Plame’s name may well have been a crime. We have to wait for the special prosecutor, but it’s important for people to understand—the CIA has said that Plame was covert; the CIA filed a criminal complaint about the leak of her name; and Patrick Fitzgerald may end up finding that a serious crime was committed in this case.
threlfeld,
It is that staute that the investigation is taking place.
Realisticly you cannot classify a persons name. For example, hello my name is ... oops I sorry officer you are not cleared to know my name.
The operative word here is 'was' past tense.
The other criteria for the subject law is 'overseas' you have convently ignored this one. She had been working state side.
As I previous;y said Novak has stated that Fitzgerald knows who has supposedly leaked her name. Actually the leak involved her employment.
I am still waiting for any specific indictments directly invloving the leak.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity. Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information;" he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.
There's Jail Space ready for MARY McCARTHY
Karl Rove's return to the grand jury today could mean the end of the Rove investigation or the beginning of the Rove prosecution. It depends on who asked Rove to return. If Fitzgerald asked Rove to return to the grand jury, that means Fitzgerald thinks he doesn't have enough for an indictment. If Rove asked to return to the grand jury, that means Rove's lawyer believes an indictment is imminent and is sending his client back to make a final desperate attempt to avoid indictment.
That’s why Bush dumped Rove. Now he won’t have to fire him, he just gave him a different job. Fitzgerald's Chicago office just won on all counts in their criminal case against former Republican Governor George Ryan. Now he has time to turn his sights on a bigger target. Should be fun. The Republican culture of corruption is a boon to the prosecution business.
fizziwigg,
You can take your hate speech and go back under your rock.
Fizziwigg,
Fitzgerald's job is tantamount to figuring out how to nail slime to a wall. Not easy, and it leaves you a mess. Hope he wears his "paint" clothes.
Novak has previously stated that Fitzgerald already knows who leaked. The contest is to figure out whether he will or will not Prosecute and whom.
It does not take a rocket scientist to 1. figure out and 2. prosecute if necessary.
Whats left? Timing.
Look for an indictment say about month before the November election.
Fizzlewog just wants to change the subject away the Dems culture of treasonism! I don't blame him. McCarthy, Burglar, Clarke, and Wilson really NEED to change that subject!
Victoria,
Remember leaking to embarass Bush is good and leaking to support Bush is bad.
Now lets go and lay down by our bowls like good dogs. Grrrr!
Westsidedavis said that statements given to reporters are not necessarily made under oath. Let's expand that statement further: Things printed in the national press, which by today's definition, is decidedly left- wing,liberal, and extremely anti-Bush and leaning very much toward being anti-American, are also not made under oath. All one needs do is read the NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, The Oregonian and one will find this out for himself.
"Not since the days when governments of gentlemen thought it inappropriate to read other gentlemen's mail have America's intelligence capabilities been more in doubt. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
"In his 18 months as CIA director, former-CIA-official-turned-congressman-turned-CIA-official Porter Goss managed to drive out some of the agency's most valuable veterans, lose ground to the Pentagon's intelligence apparatus, and generally leave the once-proud "company" in disarray. In addition, he appears to have gotten caught up in a series of marginally important issues such as minor leaks to the press."
"But it isn't all Goss' fault. In fact, a large share of the blame rests with Congress for panic legislation, from establishment of the ill-conceived Department of Homeland Security to the creation of an intelligence overlord whose authority is not well-defined."
(Dan Thomason, Scripps-Howard)
Post a Comment