home

The Double Standard on Leakers

Murray Waas has a new article in the National Journal asking, Is There a Double Standard on Leakers? The answer is yes.

Murray reports that Sen. Pat Roberts, who praised the CIA's firing of an agent who reportedly disclosed classified information to WaPo reporter Dana Priest for an article on CIA secret prisons, has himself been a leaker.

Roberts now:

"[T]hose who leak classified information not only risk the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, but also expose the brave men and women of the intelligence community to greater danger. Clearly, those guilty of improperly disclosing classified information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Roberts three years ago:

On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States.

....The former intelligence officials said in interviews that Roberts was never held accountable for his comments, which bore directly on the issue of intelligence-gathering sources and methods, and revealed that Iraqis close to Hussein were probably talking to the United States. These former officials contrasted the Roberts case with last week's firing of CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy, as examples of how rank and file intelligence professionals now have much to fear from legitimate and even inadvertent contacts with journalists, while senior executive branch officials and members of Congress are almost never held accountable when they seriously breach national security through leaks of information.

As for fired agent Mary McCarthy, her lawyer Ty Cobb Tuesday again denied she was the source of the secret prison leaks, adding:

Noting that McCarthy was only ten days short of retirement, Cobb said: "Her hope had been to leave with her dignity and reputation intact, which obviously did not happen."

Following McCarthy's firing, Pat Roberts has this to say:

Roberts said on Friday that he was "pleased that the Central Intelligence Agency has identified the source of certain unauthorized disclosures, and I hope that the Agency, and the Community as a whole, will continue to vigorously investigate other outstanding leak cases."

Right back at you, Senator Roberts.

< Greenwald: #1 on Amazon | Woman in Wheelchair Dies After Jolted By Taser >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 05:47:03 AM EST
    This is hardly surprising. Congressmen spend so much time talking out of both sides of their mouths that it would be earth shattering news to find one who had never contradicated himself, or even one that doesn't do so regularly. But this malady is hardly one which only Congressmen suffer. News journalists, Bloggers, and yes, even blog commenters here at TalkLeft also regularly jump back on forth on principle, depending on which way the political wind is blowing on a given issue. You scream about the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity and how she helped to get Joe Wilson his trip to Nigeria, yet you embrace every leaker who paints this administration in a bad light (as it deserves to be painted all too often). But in three years time, when Hillary is President, you will turn 180 degress and denounce every leak that hurts her administration as high treason and gleefully rejoice everytime an administration malcontent is "outed". This is what happens when the permanent campaign combines with the politics of personal destruction, and the only way to stop it is to stop doing it yourself.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:18:25 AM EST
    charlie - I must compliment you on a well reasoned response to justpaul's comments. It is through such detailed writing, specially the back up quotes and links to their sources, that his "fortune telling" is destroyed. And your use of "east coast" slang/tough talk adds so very much to the reasoned discourse it is hard to read it without swooning in admiration. et al - I rather enjoyed this:
    It would appear that the only relevant difference here is whose political ox is being gored, and whether a liberal or conservative journalist was the beneficiary of the leak. That the press sought to hound Robert Novak out of polite society for the Plame disclosure and then rewards Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen with Pulitzers proves the worst that any critic has ever said about media bias.
    Link

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimcee on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:40:29 AM EST
    Well if Ms McCarthy leaked then she deserves her fate. What part of classified doesn't a CIA person unterstand. I get the feeling that the press is about to be 'hoist on its own petard' of admiration for leakers and it's about time.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:17:30 AM EST
    charlie writes:
    Which part of prove it is givin' you trouble?
    What part of confessing don't you understand?
    WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.
    Aint links great???? To bad you can't figure out how to do'em.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:23:08 AM EST
    the cia says she admitted it. She says she didn't. and once again wrongwingers confuse exposing illegal activities with selectively leaking a tiny bit of misinformation to swiftboat someone who told the truth about the admin's lies.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:34:31 AM EST
    Sailor, Tell that to Linda Tripp, whose entire personnel file was "leaked" after she exposed another Administration's lies. I don't recall the Left getting too upset about that bit of administration leaking. I understand the double-standard all to well, whic is why I agree with TL that Robertson is being two-faced on this. But the fact that he is doesn't mean no one else is as well.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:35:19 AM EST
    ppj - Aint politics great. Bush de-classifies for political traction and you go to the wall for him like a scientologist defending L. Ron Hubbard, McCarthy does it and you practically wet yourself. And 60%+ of the country is starting to realize how full of it you are. Nice "uniter" you got there.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:43:31 AM EST
    j.p - Aside from the fact that all Leftists secretly love Hillary (even though they dont have the guts to admit it), what actual evidence do you have from the postings at this site that she is given a the kind of free pass that you're implying?

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:49:14 AM EST
    Sailor's Law; when they don't have an argument they bring up the clenis.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:15:33 AM EST
    interestingly enough, the only people accusing ms. mccarthy of leaking classified data are you and the press. the cia hasn't, nor has ms. mccarthy admitted to it. so where, exactly, did this "information" come from?

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    Irony is truly something to love. On the one hand, they seem to think that Dana Preist should be tried for writing about secret (and illegal) prisons, and are overjoyed that Mary MacCarthy has been fired for supposedly leaking the info to Preist. Yet, the only evidence they have that MacCarthy was the leaker is an MSNBC news story that she supposedly admitted to leaking. Where did that info come from? The CIA never officially states why someone is terminated. That's right, A LEAK from some higher up in the CIA! Once again, the old adage of this particular group is: Leaks of illegality on the part of the administration bad, leaks to personally smear someone, Brilliant!

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    Jondee - Hate to pop your bubble, but the Pres is allowed to do that. It's just part of the being President thing. CIA people, on the other hand, do not have that right. I trust you understand the difference. et al - The link was to MSNBC which quoted NBC News. BION. Your choice. Now. It is my take that Mrs. McCarthy has denied being the source for Dana Priest. I have not seen any hard news source where she is saying she didn't leak, period. So what I see is a big parsing excercise. Perhaps one of you can provide a hard news source. I thank you in advance. (No, not you charlie. We all know you can't link.)

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    I have not seen any hard news source where she is saying she didn't leak, period.
    Yes ppj, she leaked once shen she was eight years old. Her mommy was very upset and sent her to her room. In case you are not following too closley, she denied leaking as charged. You may want to let powerline know about the earlier leak though. Glad to see you are on top of this one.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    I have not seen any hard news source where she is saying she didn't leak, period 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. Link PPJ, sometimes you make this like shooting fish in a barrel. Since the CIA cannot officially confirm or deny what the 'leak' was that she was fired, it could be possible that you're correct in a MS Tech Desk way, but unlikely. et al, btw: Is Newsweek a 'hard news source' or not? YMMV.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimcee on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    If Ms McCarthy did leak then she broke the oath of secrecy that she took upon entering the CIA, period. If you think she was right to do it then that is fine but it doesn't change the fact that she obviously did something that forced her removal. What it was I don't know and frankly I don't care. She obviously is a political hack who gave generously to democracts in the past, was appointed as a NIA by Sandy Burgler and sat as an inspector general for the CIA and who had the keys to all of the file cabinets. As an IG she was in a perfect position to investigate the secret prison files and using the appropriate channels within the CIA and the gov't to investigate. Instead it appears she told a friend of hers (Priest) in the press who then proceeded to write a Pulitzer prize winning story that can't be proven. Priest could prove it if she was willing to rat out her source but if her source ends up being McCarthy then it proves the McCarthy broke her oath not to mention the law in leaking the prison story and deserves to be fired. As PPakajim said, the president can declassify information for whatever reason he chooses as part of being the CEO. Ms McCarthy doesn't have that luxury because she was just a cog, although a big one, in the gov't and not the titular head. The press forced the leak issue to the forefront by demanding that an investigation take place because Joe Wilson had a political tantrum in the NYT. Apparently it never occured to them that if leaks were investigated that either the leaks would dry up or the press would become a target of the leak investigation. What arrogant b@stards the press has become. In other words, hoist on thier own petard. Charlie, please don't even waste your time responding to this post with your childish yapping.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    shorter jimcee: I dont mind playing politics with peoples lives, but when the other side gets the upper hand, dont expect me not to have a tantrum.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 07:18:01 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - From the link.
    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.
    "the leak" is specific to one leak. It does not say that she has not leaked. Evidence of the parsing going on is contained in the next sentence.
    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.
    Further in the article we find:
    CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano re-affirmed on Monday that an agency official had been fired after acknowledging "unauthorized contacts with the media and discussion of classified information" with journalists. Gimigliano and other administration spokespersons said they were prohibited by law from disclosing the identity of the person who was fired. But government officials familiar with the matter confirmed to NEWSWEEK that McCarthy, a 20-year veteran of the CIA's intelligence-or analytical- branch, was the individual in question
    Dark Avenger. Let me extend to you a heart felt thank you for providing me the information that proves my point. What the Left is doing is trying to play the "what is, is" parsing game. No one really cared when Clinton did it, after all it was only "not sex" but just a BJ. No reasonable person cared. I didn't, though I did find it funny. But this is a tad bit more serious and it is not going away. charlie - You write about spelling?
    I hate to confuse ya with the facts, sport, but the USA ain't a corporation and shrub ain't the CEO.
    First, what does that have to do with McCarthy being fired? The answer is, nothing. It is just charlie wanting to rant. Secondly, it is "you" not "ya" and it is "isn't" not "aint."

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    Let me extend to you a heart felt thank you for providing me the information that proves my point. In return, we the "America-hating, terrorist hugging Left" owe you thanks for parsing for us that unless Ms. McCarthy issued a blanket denial of leaking anything to anyone at anytime, she most certainly did leak 'something', according to what passes for logic in your Faux-addled world. government officials familiar with the matter confirmed to NEWSWEEK that McCarthy, a 20-year veteran of the CIA's intelligence-or analytical- branch, was the individual in question Incidentally, those unnamed folks who who 'confirmed' the firing and the reason behind it were giving out what is supposedly 'classified information' but you blandly pass that by in your eager, tripping haste to stick it to the Left yet again. What the Left is doing is trying to play the "what is, is" parsing game. What the Left isn't doing is lurking under your bed, no doubt due to your occasional meals of red beans and rice :). But this is a tad bit more serious and it is not going away I certainly hope not, as I hope the Democrats lead a bipartisan(in the Rovian sense) and investigate this when they take power in both Houses in 2007, as seems very likely now, barring Jesus and the 12 Apostles coming back to campaign for Republican candidate by Labor Day this year.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimcee on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    Et al, I don't care which party is in control of the gov't but when 'James Bond' types start yakking to the press about clandestine stuff because they have philosophical differences with thier executive officer/CEO then I think thier party politics have poisoned the security of the republic. What amazes me more than anything is that anyone finds it easy to be horrified by this kind of stuff that has been the status quo for the last 30 years in Spookland. Someone in the CIA, especially someone who knows everything, her being an IG and all and confides in her social buddy about things that were supposed to be secret but end up being Pulitzer kind of stuff. Kind of a loose lips thing and all.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:05:09 PM EST
    It is sort of like getting used to a barking dog. At some point you don't hear it anymore.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:10:21 PM EST
    The high pitched whinings been getting worse lately. For some reason.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:17:57 PM EST
    Jondee-You are just experiencing a mild breach in your spiritual path. It will pass.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    Squeaky - I have about fifty a day. Its kinda like the Dance of Shiva.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    Its kinda like the Dance of Shiva.
    Pretty funny picture. Thank god you have an extra set of arms.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:45:04 PM EST
    Sometimes I have keep an eye on them to make sure they dont get into trouble.

    Re: The Double Standard on Leakers (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    I can only imagine......