CIA Fires Traitor For Collaborating With The Enemy
I’d say let’s dispense with the trial for treason…. take him to CTU/Los Angeles and have Jack Bauer deal with him or her. Jack has had a pretty bad day so far, I’m sure it wouldn’t be pretty. Or let’s send him to Iraq and give him a real field assignment.
CIA Officer Fired for Leaking Classified Info to the Media - FOX News
A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.
CIA officials will not reveal the officer’s name, assignment, or the information that was leaked. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.
One official called this a “damaging leak” that deals with operational information and said the fired officer “knowingly and willfully” leaked the information to the media and “was caught.”
I’m just waiting for a United States Senator to be the next to be charged for treason for leaking classified information about the NSA wiretapping program targeting suspected terrorists within the USA. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] And The Gay Patriot is thinking the same thing as myself about a certain US Senator: I’m just waiting for a United States Senator to be the next to be charged for treason for leaking classified information about the NSA wiretapping program targeting suspected terrorists within the USA. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Democrat Mole In The CIA Fired — April 21, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - April 21, 2006
You mean Micheal Douglas?
Comment by JohnJ — April 21, 2006 @ 10:48 pm - April 21, 2006
“I’d say let’s dispense with the trial”
Fine, then you won’t have a problem recommending the same when Hillary sends Dubya off the The Hague for war crimes after he leaves office.
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 11:35 pm - April 21, 2006
Oh, and Bruce, would you also be willing to dispense with a trial for THIS alleged leaker? Hmmmmmm? Breaking news suggests she may have to testify under oath:
http://tinyurl.com/kopgd
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - April 21, 2006
Hasn’t Secretary of State Rice just been subpoenaed to testify in a criminal trial where the defense is claiming that she leaked classified information to a pro-Israeli lobbyist? Is she to be charged with treason, also? Tick. Tick. Tick.
Comment by Anonymous — April 22, 2006 @ 12:59 am - April 22, 2006
Depends. Was it true? Tick, tick, tick.
In addition: did it affect U.S. security interests in any way, shape or form, positive or negative? Tick, tick, tick.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 1:07 am - April 22, 2006
(in other words, Anonymous - one can subpoena a ham sandwich)
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 1:08 am - April 22, 2006
This is off topic but perhaps here’s a cause I think we can all agree on:
http://tinyurl.com/loh3y
It is just disgusting to think Hilton Hotels could do this. Let’s pressure them to change their stance and allow the wounded troops to continue to get free steak dinners at Fran O’Brien’s.
Comment by Ian — April 22, 2006 @ 1:40 am - April 22, 2006
CIA officer fired over “secret CIA prisons in Europe” leak
Excellent. Via NBC:
WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.
The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now unde…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — April 22, 2006 @ 2:41 am - April 22, 2006
Gryph… a propos of an earlier discussion where you immorally (in my opinion) accused the U.S. of having policies of “torture” (your incorrectly-used word) that our brave CIA and service people would have to be carrying out on a daily basis… You had mentioned the story about alleged CIA detention centers in Europe…
According to the New York Times (hardly sympathetic to my viewpoint), European investigators are having significant doubts that the reports of CIA detention centers in Europe were valid, or that any such detention centers exist.
And reasonable (I think) speculation has begun that the whole affair MAY have been a misinformation plant, precisely to flush out the type of CIA leaker who is the subject of present thread.
If the alleged “detention center” story was a deliberate leaker sting operation, that could explain why the leaker was only fired today, instead of being arrested for law-breaking.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 4:13 am - April 22, 2006
#3
How in the hell would a Jr. Senator be able to send anybody “off to the Hague for war crimes”?
Furthermore, just become some douchebag like Annan, who was ass deep in Oil For Fools, says the war is illegal doesn’t make it so.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 22, 2006 @ 7:20 am - April 22, 2006
Calarato-
It is my understanding that leaking classified material is illegal regardless of the good or harm it does. Are you suggesting that leaking classified material is prefectly okay as long as it is a “harmless leak” or has a positive effect? Giving out classified information is wrong in and of itself… there is no exception for doing so when it is good or neutral in effect.
If Rice did tell a pro-Israeli lobbyist information that was classified when that person was not cleared for it, then she broke the law. Period. Quibbling about whether it is a good leak or a bad leak is really just you trying to divert attention away from that fact.
Comment by Anonymous — April 22, 2006 @ 10:55 am - April 22, 2006
#11: “How in the hell would a Jr. Senator be able to send anybody “off to the Hague for war crimes”?”
Here’s a clue: “President Clinton.”
Comment by Ian — April 22, 2006 @ 11:32 am - April 22, 2006
#12 - Anonymous, you are the one quibbling. Kindly point out where I would have quibbled about “whether it is a good leak or a bad leak”. Either that, or stop trying to make me your sock puppet (putting words in my mouth).
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - April 22, 2006
P.S. If you can pry open your mind for 10 seconds…
then, in addition to answering my question about WHETHER Rice leaked anything to begin with (and, if so, then WHAT)… Also pause to answer the question of whether said hypothetical / unknown leak might in some way have been AUTHORIZED (thus made LEGAL) by public or private, formal security or intelligence agreements between the United States and Israel.
My main point stands: Subpoenaing somebody is nothing, and, at least so far, you haven’t substantiated anything in your oddly vague charges about Rice. OK?
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - April 22, 2006
CIA fires information leak
Good. It’s about time. I hope they prosecute her too. I have no tolerance for people who violate security. She knew the risks and the consequences.
CIA Officer Is Fired for Media Leaks
The CIA fired a long-serving intelligence o…
Trackback by Leaning Straight Up — April 22, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - April 22, 2006
Well by all means if the Government is arresting American citizens and keeping them in secret prisons, then we certainly should be keeping that secret. We wouldn’t want anyone to think that we were a “DINO” - Democracy In Name Only.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 22, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - April 22, 2006
#13 Hillary isn’t stupid. She’s a lot of things, but that isn’t one of them. The precident of a former US president standing trial at the Hague would not be in her best inerest unless she planned to never be a *former* president.
And lest you misunderstand, if Hillary is the next president (which isn’t completely impossible) and the person who comes after her wanted to send *her* to some court outside of the US I’d be just as much up in arms… and I do mean arms. Our submission to outside rule is NOT an option while I breathe.
Comment by Synova — April 22, 2006 @ 7:44 pm - April 22, 2006
Here is something people should see: http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/04/leaker-al-shifa.html
It comes down to this:
- Mary McCarthy, the CIA leaker in question in this thread, was initially skeptical that Saddam had connections with al Qaeda. (Ditto for Richard Clarke.)
- BUT - in 1998, Clinton and Richard Clarke were convinced that Saddam DID have connections with al Qaeda and that the two groups were, in fact, collaborating on CHEMICAL WEAPONS production in the Sudan. Clinton then proceeded to bomb the suspected site, known as al Shifa.
- And Mary McCarthy later officially signed (or co-signed) memos in which she defended the al Shifa bombing, and ENDORSED the Clinton-Clarke view that Saddam and al Qaeda had been collaborating on chemical weapons at al Shifa. (Thus recanting her earlier views.)
- In other words - this is the important part: Clinton Administration officials agreed that bin Laden and Saddam were collaborating on chemical weapons, at al Shifa.
Yet, today (2004-2006), we are to be told by Clinton officials, Richard Clarke, and the liberal media in general, that somehow “Saddam had no connections to al Qaeda”???
MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - April 22, 2006
It is very heartening that liberals are starting to “get” national security and the protection of classified material. However, they have a long way to go. Please consider that a cabinet level official would have AUTHORITY to declassify per the executive order that establishes classification procedures. I provide a quote:
(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.
Thus a secretary of State might use discretion to declassify material and use it in diplomatic efforts. A former NSC official, lowered to CIA analyst would not have the same AUTHORITY.
Keep focusing on national security though. Ulitmately, it may keep New York or Los Angelese from being incinerated.
Comment by gm — April 22, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - April 22, 2006
Yeah - there’s that aspect as well.
I just read (before heading out here) a very dumb article in the New York Times on Mary McCarthy.
Why dumb? Among other reasons, the article tried to bring up the disclosure of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq as an example of alleged “leaking” hypocrisy.
Liberals have been quite dishonest lately, in trying to drag that in. In truth, the President had every legal and moral right to reveal the NIE information - quite unlike Mary McCarthy when she did her thing.
Additionally, the President did it for good reasons (furthering public knowledge and debate of the war) with no damage to existing security programs - again unlike Mary McCarthy, who reportedly has damaged security programs badly.
In short, as the nationally elected President, Bush had both the right and the good judgment to do what he did. While Mary McCarthy, as an unelected bureaucrat, possessed neither.
Comment by Calarato — April 23, 2006 @ 12:39 am - April 23, 2006
Moonbats want to try George Bush for war crimes.
Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away, but it does reduce the attention they so heartily crave.
Comment by GoLakers — April 23, 2006 @ 3:37 am - April 23, 2006
Bruce: “I’m just waiting for a United States Senator to be the next to be charged for treason for leaking classified information”
Would that perchance be Republican Sen. Richard Shelby?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40886-2004Aug4.html
Or is it perhaps Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch?
http://tinyurl.com/r7vlc
Comment by Ian — April 23, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - April 23, 2006
I’m going to make a prediction. Mary McCarthy won’t be prosecuted. Cause if she is, what will we say to the Russian and Chinese when we criticize them for cracking down on their media? They’ll just point to this incident and say we do the same thing, even if it isn’t exactly the same thing.
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - April 23, 2006
Are you really that stupid, or did you just forget to take your lithium?
Comment by rightwingprof — April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm - April 23, 2006
#24 - Mary McCarthy may well not be prosecuted, but, not for the reason you gave.
Your argument doesn’t begin to make sense. She isn’t remotely “media” in any sense. She is a career bureaucrat who materially betrayed her country and employment agreements. No foreign government - least of all the Russians or Chinese - would ever argue with cracking down on that. Newsflash: those countries are LESS free than ours; not more.
No, she won’t be prosecuted, for other reasons. One theoretical possibility at this point (I am NOT saying this is so) is that, in fact, the whole story she leaked was false - a counter-intelligence ploy that duped her - see #10. A stronger possibility, assuming what she leaked was real and hence her betrayal was real, is that she cut a deal with her ex-employer. (Say, her silence and no counter-suits, in return for no prosecution of her.)
We don’t know. We shall see, over time.
Comment by Calarato — April 23, 2006 @ 7:44 pm - April 23, 2006
Now, having said what I’ve said above…
This “McCarthy leak” may be one of those situations where everybody was wrong.
As a country, we should get to the bottom of whether the CIA was operating secret prisons (again - see the link in #10 where European Union investigators cannot see that they did). If they were, the U.S. should have a debate about the necessity and rightness (or lack thereof) on a going-forward basis.
In principle, for any U.S. government agency to operate SECRET or non-transparent prisons for anybody (U.S. nationals or not) is a very bad idea.
I’m sure that, if the prisons are real, they’ve only been used thus far to chase al Qaeda. But they would be an awful precedent. Think of the potential for abuse under the next President Clinton.
Again IF the prisons ever existed… then I’m sure they made sense for the first year or two after 9-11; and I’m sure that Democrats in Congress, Andrew Sullivan media types, etc., approved at the time. So I would want the debate to avoid hypocritical posturing (Gryph, that means you).
Comment by Calarato — April 24, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - April 24, 2006
Aside from the facts (i) that McCarthy has denied that she leaked classified information (and apparently has passed a “lie-detector” test attesting as such), and (ii) that it is an improper use of classification to conceal a crime, since when is Washington Post reporter Dana Priest “the enemy”?
There’s no news on Faux News.
Comment by raj — April 25, 2006 @ 6:24 am - April 25, 2006