There’s no news on Faux News.

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).

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.

Well by all means if the Government is arresting American citizens and keeping them in secret prisons

Are you really that stupid, or did you just forget to take your lithium?

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

Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away, but it does reduce the attention they so heartily crave.

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.

(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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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…

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?

Here’s a clue: “President Clinton.”

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.

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.

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.

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…