some more from the WaPo article linked to above: == [McCarthy's] last job at the CIA was in the office of Inspector General John L. Helgerson, who has a unique status at the agency. The inspector general's combination of independence and access may have been combustible in McCarthy's case, if allegations about her involvement in leaks prove true. Since the revelation in 2004 of prisoner abuses by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the CIA inspector general's office was charged with examining allegations of torture and other ill treatment of detainees by CIA officers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The allegations arose, according to sources, from complaints made by others within the agency about wrongdoing. . . . Several former intelligence officials said they were particularly alarmed about McCarthy's alleged involvement in any leaks because of where she worked at the CIA. L. Britt Snyder III, who was CIA inspector general from 1997 to 2000, said if McCarthy leaked information while working in the IG office, "we would have considered that a fairly egregious sin." The IG, he said, "gets into everything, including personal things. That makes it a little different than other places."
and this from NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200604231348.asp == Mary McCarthy's position--the post from which she is likely to have learned the most sensitive information at the heart of the leak controversy--was inside the CIA's inspector general's office. This is the unit that investigates internal misconduct. This is the unit to which government employees are encouraged to report government abuse or illegality so it can be investigated, potentially reported to Congress, and prosecuted if appropriate. That is, it is the legal alternative to leaking national secrets to the media. It is, therefore, the process that has to be protected if our intelligence community is to have credibility with the public and with the foreign intelligence services on which we are so dependent. If it becomes just another Washington sieve--a place where people who comply with their oaths and exercise professional discretion may nevertheless expect to find the information they confide trumpeted on Page One of the Washington Post--we are guaranteed to have much more leaking. And much less security.
CIA leaker was Kerry campaign contributer ______________ Basso utterly out of ammo. click, click, click... [shakes gun]
Does anyone else find it remarkable that the Bush Administration policies are so over-the-top radical and nutty that they have scared folks at the CIA. I mean we're not talking about hippies and flower children.
ACtually it was reported numerous places. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/6/233723/9065 Anyway, it is funny that you claim to be such a hawk about national security yet seemingly don't care that about the fact that someone doing important work regarding our national security was outed by this administration for the purpose of political revenge, as Fitzgerald calls it. All you are able to muster in the way of the response is an Alrich Ames reference?
Well this story just got interesting -- Secrets of the CIA A former colleague says the fired Mary McCarthy ‘categorically denies’ being the source of the leak on agency renditions. April 24, 2006 - A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe, a friend of the operative told NEWSWEEK. The fired official, Mary O. McCarthy, “categorically denies being the source of the leak,” one of McCarthy’s friends and former colleagues, Rand Beers, said Monday after speaking to McCarthy. Beers said he could not elaborate on this denial and McCarthy herself did not respond to a request for comment left by NEWSWEEK on her home answering machine. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/
Glenn Greenwald's on fire... here's one post, but anyone interested in this topic ought to go read the last 4 or 5 posts he's put up... Also, where's the harm? How does this knowledge hurt our WOT? Inflame the potential terrorists? Perhaps, but the rhetoric about terrorists and their numbers have wrapped the administration around the proverbial axle and wouldn't it be less inflammatory if we just followed our own laws?
Beers was her boss. and she was recommended for the NSC job by Sandy Berger. Seems his name cropped up recently around some intelligence issues, secret documents, or something...
Great stuff. I did read Greenwald's series on all of this over the last few days. I especially liked this one which asks the question, why are all these Bushies so up in arms about McCarthy's leak, and yet they didn't raise a stink when the Republicans listed in his article leaked. It as I pointed out in another thread. We know that the leak that outed Plame was damaging to our national security. A leak that stopped the CIA from shipping off people who haven't been found guilty of anything is a different story. Like Greenwald says, what part of this has been shown to hurt national security?
She worked with Wilson, then in the Inspector General's office, which would have been directly involved in the referral to Justice of the Plame kerfuffle...something smells here...
Yes, she probably even knew Wilson. What does any of that have to do with anything? I don't think it is unusual that people working in the same line of work, on the same areas would know each other. Greenwald's articles below even discuss this information and the relevance or lack there of on the whole issue. Check it out, hombre.
Are you still referring the leak which interfered with our tracking WMD's, and nuclear goings on of Iraqn a Kerfluffle?
all of this is completely irrelevant when the issue is confidentiality. Further, there were established means for "exposing" policies w/ which she disagreed, and given her position in the IG's office, she was in an exceptional position to take advantage of them...or not.
One thing that kinds of sticks me is the argument that there were other avenues. In fact, her boss was a Bush appointee, her Director and his staff not only Bush people, but Porter brought many over from the House where he used his committee to stonewall investigations into administration activities. This administration repeatedly destroys the basic structures of government and oversight, then complains when they don't work as if everything intentionally done to subvert them was unknown and unimaginable. http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/PoliticizationOfInspectorsGeneral.pdf
btw people should really read the whole Newsweek article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/
