Since when have the facts been relevant in this regime's decision making?

It is just another play pretent thingy with them. The constitution is just another piece of paper to them ... so they do not need facts ... spin will do.

Make no mistake, firing her 10 days before her retirement was a shot fired across the bow to other potential whistleblowers.

And I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the fact that she hasn't exactly been a cheerleader for the manipulation of intelligence by the Bush administration, nor that she gave money to Kerry's campaign against Bush.

At least she gets to keep her pension - but if I were her, I'd be looking into slander and/or libel lawsuits against whomever it was that told the press she was fired for confessing to leaking information about the prisons.

I was glad that Olberman made the Nixon connection. We need to keep hammering that association with this administration until everybody gets it.

BTW, I notice that Karl Rove still has his job AND his security clearance.....

I thought this leak case didnt matter! LMAO

All of a sudden is does.

You people just proved Ricky right!

Thanks Krestrel, for noting Mary McCarthy's donations to the Kerry 2004 campaign. She gave $2000 to Sen.Kerry and over $5000 in soft money to the DNC.

I like your sense of humor, here and elsewhere!

1998: Sandy Berger nominates Mary McCarthy to her post

The post was previously held by Rand Beers, who was Sen.Kerry's Nat'l Security Advisor for the campaign. He worked for the CIA during the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations. Beers resigned just before the Iraq war to work for the Kerry campaign.
Wikipedia: Rand Beers

NBC: CIA officer fired after admitting leak, failed polygraph

2004: Sandy Berger takes 50 documents from the National Archives, stuffing them in his pants and briefcase, claiming it as an "accident". Berger left working for the Kerry Campaign right after the incident became public.

2005: Sandy Berger pled guilty to unauthorized removal of classified material. U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense." [bold added]

Wikipedia: Sandy Berger

So, Mary McCarthy just follows in the steps of her previous boss, Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor with top secret clearance (now suspended for only three years).

Don't worry about Mary. Sandy Berger only got a slap on the wrist compared to jail time that he should have received. Mary lost her job, but it could be worse for her too.

US CODE TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 37, § 793
§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Cornell Law School

Hi,

I found more information on Rand Beers, who was replaced by Mary McCarthy at the CIA post.

Rand Beers was responsible for overseeing the herbicide spraying of coca farms in Columbia. When farmers having legal crops of coffee, bananas, and wheat were also sprayed, he didn't care. Beers made statements to ABC News that the poor farmers of Columbia growing the coca may lose everything and being poor does not give them a pass.

Rand Beers claimed in a sworn deposition that Columbia's FARC terrorists supporting the coca trade had "received training at Al-Qaida terrorist camps in Afganistan".

His testimony was false and one of many things that he had to later correct in US Federal District Court. He claimed that he was misinformed.

Then when he quit the CIA to work for Sen.Kerry's campaign, I'm sure that liberals here where happy that a Bush Administration CIA officer would leave to work for Sen.Kerry. Beers would likely have been Kerry's National Security Advisor had Kerry won. (oh, yeah, you all think he did. hmm. ok, how about if Sen.Kerry was the one in the White House?)

The Toxic Career of Rand Beers: Kerry's Drug War Zealot

Rand Beers leaves his post at the CIA and Mary McCarthy is nominated by Sandy Berger to replace him. No doubt Beers had something to do with training McCarthy.

In summary:
McCarthy leaks CIA documents to the press.
Beers controled fumigation of crops in Columbia, both illegal and legal. He lied to a US Federal District Court. He defended the corporation hired to do the fumigation.
Sandy Berger steals classified documents from the National Archives and stuffs them in his pants.

Boy, this is really a good group, huh?

Later!

Yes, Im proven correct again. The libs didnt care about this story yesterday. When called on it they spewed garbage about how this story didnt matter and wasnt important.

I love being right all the time. Just like Ill be next NOV!

"Brad there was a leaker caught in the CIA this past week and fired. I know you care about leaks because of the coverage you have given them over the past year. Yet with this one you are strangely quiet.

Could you explain to your readers why you havent mentioned this leaker?"

First you complain Brad didn't blog the story. Now you complain that he did blog the story.
What exactly have you been right about here?

When is a leak a leak and a "leak" not a leak?

When the prez outs CIA agents ... that is not a "leak", wink wink, because "it is not illegal".

When the prez's need to do a character/political assasination is no longer resistable ... this is not an outing ... wink wink ... or leak ... wink wink ... because "he has needs".

"It is God telling the prez how to execute eternal judgment" ... wink wink ... "on the sinners" ... wink wink ... toasted some kool aid guzzlers as they chanted "down with Hilary" mantras ...

When the government falsely accuses an agent who did nothing (like Plame or McCarthy) of leaking, this is a real bona fide leak ... wink wink ... to this regime ... er uh ... wink wink ... administration.

The only mystery in all this republican dictatorship scandalous behavior, now being revealed each day, is why do 32% still support this greedy, rebellious, corrupt, and lying weasel of a republican dictatorship?

All of this proves no person or agency should be blindly trusted. The intelligence agencies, and as recently noted in the press, branches of the military are taking it upon themselves to decide which rules they want to follow, and which FOI requests they acknowledge. This is as dangerous to a democracy as any terrorist threat. And like everything else it WILL get out of hand. The military and secret services are not democratic institutions and must always remain subservient to the civilian government.

With the religious nuts and neocons gaining power in the intelligence branches, and their coercive threats [mandatory lie detector tests, prosecuting whistle blowers, and that *ss Porter Goss] against the agents that risk their lives... Ray McGovern's comments last night [see Brad's previous story] are even more important. "This is not American. This is not the country that we serve." --- Are you intelligence officers comfortable with where our country is being led? Democracy thrives because no secret can be held very long against the citizens and their representatives. History is full of evidence.

Rove leaked (if he did) for the sake of political manipulation.

Rove allegedly leaked - to try to cause problems.

McCarthy leaked (if she did) for the sake of informing the public how the CIA are trying to avoid the law by running these black prisons, which are illegal in the US and no doubt, frowned upon by the international community.

McCarthy allegedly leaked - because this administration's policies cause problems and their actions would be illegal if they were carried out on US soil.

Of course.. I don't expect Ricky or Mike J to appreciate the differences between a whistleblowing leak and a sinister, manipulative, politically-influenced leak that was designed to cover up the lies this administration had told us about Niger.

Is There A Double Standard On Leak Probes?
LEAKING:
"...three years ago on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, [Pat] 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.

On March 20, 2003, at the onset of military hostilities between U.S. and Iraqi forces, Roberts said in a speech to the National Newspaper Association that he had "been in touch with our intelligence community" and that the CIA had informed President Bush and the National Security Council "of intelligence information from what we call human intelligence that indicated the location of Saddam Hussein and his leadership in a bunker in the suburbs of Baghdad."

At the time, it was one of the most sensitive secrets in government that the CIA had recruited Iraqi nationals who claimed to have infiltrated Hussein's inner circle to be able to follow his movements at the onset of war. But after the bombs and missiles hit an Iraqi governmental complex known as Dora Park, located on the Tigris River south of Baghdad, Hussein either was not there, or escaped unharmed.

Whether or not Roberts' comments were inadvertent, former intelligence officials said, they almost certainly tipped off the Iraqi dictator that there were spies close to him. "He [Roberts] had given up that we had a penetration of [Saddam's] inner circle," says a former senior intelligence official. "It was the worst thing you could ever do." "

WHISTLE BLOWING:

Ex-AT&T Worker Tells Of NSA Op

"Given the public debate about the constitutionality of the Bush administration's spying on U.S. citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant, I think it is critical that this information be brought out into the open, and that the American people be told the truth about the extent of the administration's warrantless surveillance practices, particularly as it relates to the internet."

Government Accountability Project

National Whistleblower Center

Legal precedent: The regulations governing the Whistleblower Protection Act are codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Chapter II, Part 1201 through 1209.

Mike J - I usually skip your posts because your posts are usually full of irrelevant and incorrect information (and this one was no different). I just don't have time to wade through the muck.

I skimmed this one because you put my name on front (btw, it's spelled Kestrel, like the hawk)

Now pay attention. I'm going to give you information that you'd already know if you had actually watched the video.

Mary McCarthy's attorney says she had no access to the information the CIA alleges she leaked. So we're back to he said/she said - and she passed the lie detector on that question. So who do you believe?

The part of the polygraph she failed had nothing to do with the leak of information about the US's illegal prisons.

The part she failed had to do with her having contact with a reporter without permission from her boss and without notifying her boss. Doesn't make it right because it was against the rules, but it's far less serious than leaking classified information, don't you agree?

When you give out information about a crime being committed, it's called "whistleblowing". Besides the ethical and moral considerations, out here in the real world it's ILLEGAL to know about a crime and NOT tell - it makes you an accessory.

And the part about her associates is irrelevant to the topic, but, if you're going for "guilt by association" as you seem to be, let's talk about Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff...the list is too long to type. And shall we talk about alcohol and cocaine abuse while we're talking about the past?

Now, go back and watch the video, and pay attention this time.

(And if you post to me again, please stick to the point, and don't expect me to read more than one post per day from you, if even that. If I wanted to hear a lot of hot air and bs, I'd turn on Limbaugh or Fox News.)

BTW, on a related topic - do you think ANYONE who has anything to do with leaking information should be fired? Cause there's a list....and most of them still have their security clearance, and access to classified information - and guess who's at the top?

Kestrel,
Sorry for misspelling your name. A typo on my part. I found this photo:

I can understand you would not like my post #5. I did not expect anybody to like it. However, he is the man who trained Mary McCarthy.

As for the "guilt by association" charge, it's what you guys do. I'm just returning the favor.

This video will not work on the network I'm using now. I have to wait until later at a different location. But I read the MSNBC reports.

The story I linked to and read first is dated April 21. This new story (April 24th) mentions what you said about the parts of the polygraph test. But it's from an unnamed source.

Mary McCarthy denies leaking, Rand Beers denies that she leaked information, but CIA Director Porter Goss says she did. So you are right, it's a "she said/he said" until more facts are released. Rand Beers is described as a "friend" in the new story.

If proven that she was not the source of the leak to WP's Dana Priest, and all other policies are checked, then she could be reinstated. But the story says that she was close to retirement and planning to use her new law degree for adoption cases. That is definately commendable for her to do that.

The government may not take criminal charges against her anyway. So don't worry about her future. She'll be fine.

You asked "Who do you believe?" I'm inclined to believe the CIA officers who investigated the leak and reported to the Director. This is because of her $2000 donations to Kerry 2004 and $7000 to Democrat causes (in the new story).

Remember the Rockefeller memo that was leaked about two years ago? It was deemed to be terrible.
The leaking of a Republican memo was deemed by the MSM to be ok.
The illegally recorded phone call between then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep.John Boehner was given to Rep.Jim McDermott and he leaked it to the New York Times who printed it.

MSNBC: Fired CIA officer denies leak of classified data

Have a nice day!

Unlucky #13

Buzz off 60 watt.
You've already been stripped of dignity & integrity here.

For Mike J. and the other kool aiders who want to get beyond kindergarden, and move on up to a kinder and gentler reality, and one based upon an adult perception, I have an article concerning the issues in this case.

As KBE at post #12 pointed out, the facts alleged by the government have been impeached with contrary evidence.

So the relevant facts have now become an issue the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the law and the issue discussion is wide open. Professor Lazarus discusses the issue as an adult (link here), so while I doubt the kool aid trolls Mike J., Martin, and Ricky will get it, I trust that the mainstream majority posters here will.

Enjoy.

Dredd/Randy,
Did you fix your website? Check your accounting records. It has not worked in over three weeks....

Dredd/Randy, you present your "adult" comments on the facts well, but what is not "adult" is when you continually throw out the word 'troll'. Very childish on your part.

If you want to be "adult" and not just pompously smug, then you will discuss things in an "adult" manner. But I doubt you will get that.

I have you to thank for pointing me to the Fancy's Place list of Smileys in your posts to me long ago.

To the topic:
Andrew McCarthy (no relation to Mary) explains the concerned CIA unit in National Review:

"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."

Mary's post at the CIA is one she took over from Rand Beers, who left the CIA to work on Sen.Kerry's 2004 campaign.

She did not have to leak classified information to the media (if the allegations are true). It's like the "Internal Affairs" section of a city police department. Let them investigate officially before it becomes incendiary. I believe that her partisian feelings led her to the public disclosure before it was really necessary. There are whistleblower laws, as BlueBear2 pointed out. So she could have allowed the official and legal process to examine the issue and still be protected by the law if she saw no result coming from the investigation.

Academics on both sides will chime in with their opinion. It's up to us, as "adults", to decide which set of government officials, pundits, reporters, and professors that we believe.

Please be an adult, Randy Dredd. I think you can be. However, not all can be as evidenced on this thread.

Have a nice day!

Mike J #16

Your ad hominem irrelevance aside, the site detects certain types and responds accordingly. It worked fine for me two seconds ago.

The article by professor Lazarus was not cited nor aluded to in your ad hominem response.

A jury will decide if the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the relevant facts. That is, did the accused commit the factual acts the government says she did? Only a petite jury can decide that matter, and therefore, we can only know that she denies it.

There is no indictment at this time, only termination of employment. This is a civil matter which she can litigate in the civil courts. If they wrongfully terminated her they will have to pay damages.

If the government is going to criminally prosecute her they must bring their evidence before a grand jury, and the grand jury will decide whether or not to return a true bill.

The point professor Lazarus makes is that there is more than meets the eye in this case.

Randy Dredd,

Thank you for not being directly rude this time. I appreciate it. I don't think it was irrelevant to actually let you know that your site did not work, as I thought it didn't. I was able to view it once before. Now on different computers and networks, both at work and at home, it won't. Since you say it works, I'll have to check my firewall at home.

Yes, the investigation will continue and if a jury is needed, the facts at trail will speak for themselves.

Yes, yesterday I read the column by Prof.Lazarus after I posted #16. His article has several places where I disagree (no surprise there).

First thing that I noticed was his crack about the vultures circling. He should leave those lines to Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. Then he acknowleges the glee of Pres.Bush's critics like yourself.

Next Prof.Lazarus charges that the only reason Pres.Bush and the CIA want to investigate the leaks is "to deflect criticism of his case for invading Iraq." Nonsense! A security leak is exactly that. An unauthorized release of national security information that could be used against United States agents, armed forces, and facilities. Hello? I guess it's ok to leak when causing political trouble for Republicans, right?

Then he writes:
"But the pleasure of exposing wrongdoing, tagging the "hypocrite" label on the "Leaker-in-Chief," ..."

He and you get pleasure from addressing wrongdoing in Republicans, not Democrats. Let's get that out in the open, ok? Sen.Patrick Leahey has been accused of leaking much as well.

Prof.Lazarus acknowleges the danger of leaking classified information and the need to keep secrets in check, yet he says it's ok to get things in the open.

"But aggressive searches to root out leakers are rare, and using grand jury subpoenas to force journalists to disclose sources is even rarer."

If it is rare to find a leaker, then somebody is not doing their job and not concerned with national security, in my opinion. Leaks should always be investigated. Yes, even claims on the Republican side.

If he thinks that the leak of Valerie Plame's name is not as important as Mary McCarthy's accused leak, then why does he inject that the claims of her husband, Amb.Wilson, are "entirely true"? He and other liberals may think the claims are true, but I hear from others just the opposite. I won't get into that topic in this post.

Then Prof.Lazarus whines about the "Republican-controlled Congress" and having a Republican president at the same time i.e. no oversight. Ha! I'll bet that he (and you) didn't complain about that during the first two years of the Clinton Administration as well as the Carter years and the Johnson years!

A lot of you people whine about that too, yet forget the years that Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency. Hello? For Prof.Lazarus to be such a learned source, you would think that he could avoid such contradictions.

He is so big on himself that he predicts an outcome of the US Supreme Court!
"Supreme Court appears likely to rule that public employees have no First Amendment right ..."

Yes, you can see how Justices have ruled in the past, but sometimes they switch and surprise the predictors, don't they?

"In the Middle East, the toll of thousands of American dead has brought us only civil strife in Iraq and an increasingly radicalized nuclear Iran --- while diminishing our international credibility, and our chances of amassing a united response to the threat Iranian leaders now pose."

So what would you do? What is your solution to the problem with Iran? Iran said that they will give nuclear information to other countries, probably terrorists too. So what does President Lazarus or President Randy Dredd do? Hire Neville Chamberlain or Ramsey Clark to negotiate?

I don't want in invasion of Iran either. But if they give nuclear secrets to terrorists, they should pay dearly. Their nuclear facilities should be bombed if so.

Prof.Lazarus and Sen.Kerry have an audience when they speak out against our government and our President in a time of war, especially when visiting other countries. You and your friends are not the only ones listening, but also the terrorists are reading and listening. This internet is world-wide, not just inside the USA. They see our dissent and our bickering to the President, then they learn how to combat us in the court of world opinion.

Prof.Lazarus says that leakers against the administration are coming from conscience. Yet he will not acknowlege that the LEGAL process is open within the CIA for dissenting opinions and allegations of fraud to be reported. Mary McCarthy could have done that, but she chose not to work within the legal system. She chose the ILLEGAL path (if allegations turn out to be true).

If we don't investigate this and all leaks, including "Scooter" Libby, then we have NO CONTROL of our government employees with access to classified material. Do you want that?

You made no mention of Andrew McCarthy's article that I quoted from at National Review. Would you like to read the entire article?
Apr.23rd Sunday opinion piece
Apr.25th article, "Reporters and Investigations"

Andrew McCarthy wonders why she was not arrested right away. He also wonders, as do I, why Sandy Berger was not sent to jail. Others are being tried for the same thing.

Now it's your turn. Please tell me what you think of Andrew McCarthy's National Review articles and his statement that Mary had a legal process to follow internal to the CIA, yet she chose not to use it.

Mike J #18

You said "A security leak is exactly that. An unauthorized release of national security information that could be used against United States agents, armed forces, and facilities. Hello? I guess it's ok to leak when causing political trouble for Republicans, right?"

Well a leak is always a leak, the issue is when is a leak justified.

A leak should not be justified if it causes the nation harm, but can be justified if it does the nation good.

Easy enough, until the facts about who leaked is corruptly injected.

The issue turns on the subject matter, not on the person leaking, in terms of should it have been done or not. That is my opinion.

So a leak that outs a CIA agent doing covert WMD work about Iran and who has a company front, tracking nuclear proliferation to and from Iran is a bad leak, even if the prez leaks it.

And conversely, any leak that exposes fascist ideology permeating the US Government is a good leak, even if the prez does not leak it.

It isn't about who leaks it, it is about what is leaked.

http://www.google.com/se...-1&start=10&sa=N

http://www.google.com/se...-1&start=10&sa=N

http://www.google.com/se...-1&start=10&sa=N

Webspiderbots Ownz you all!