CIA secret prisons leaker fired

[jj]

And yet, she is not.

Consider, They used the polygraph results to [publically] fire her for releasing information on a program that they [still] don't admit really existed.

Something doesn't add up. Somebody is being played.

I suggest not a 48 hour rule, but perhaps a 48 day rule.

There is much we don't know.

Well, since the camps don't exist, how can they fire her for releasing information on them? That's what they fired her for, isn't it, rather than "releasing false information", eh? But if they don't exist, .... but, but, but ...

Yeah, 2+2=1 right now...

 

[gnome]

That is an interesting argument, but they could consistently go after her for leaking information about a classified project, that is of a nature other than what the leaker claims.

 

[jj]

That is an interesting argument, but they could consistently go after her for leaking information about a classified project, that is of a nature other than what the leaker claims.

Yes, yes... That's a possibility. Not what they said, but a possibility.

And she isn't under arrest, right?

 

[BPSCG]

And yet, she is not.

Consider, They used the polygraph results to [publically] fire her for releasing information on a program that they [still] don't admit really existed.

She also confessed.

Something doesn't add up. Somebody is being played.

I suggest not a 48 hour rule, but perhaps a 48 day rule.

There is much we don't know.

Perhaps. Maybe it was a sting? They suspected her of being much worse than a leaker? So they gave her some phony "secret" info to see what she would do with it?

Speculation is fun, ain't it?

 

[Rob Lister]

She also confessed.
Perhaps. Maybe it was a sting? They suspected her of being much worse than a leaker? So they gave her some phony "secret" info to see what she would do with it?

Speculation is fun, ain't it?

No...I think something more simple and more complex at the same time.

I think maybe she got caught-up in an intentional misinformation campaign. It isn't like these don't happen on a regular basis during times of war.

Possibly it is itself a misinformation campaign, but given the careers at stake, I doubt that too (I'm leaning heavily toward that for the time being...the firing too public, the inconsistancy obvious, the press has to ask questions, and that is the goal)

I'm just trying to apply Occam's razor and finding very little so far to cut.

Maybe even a high-level attempt to discredit Bush by "admitting" that there were indeed secret prisons without actually admitting it. I find that less likely...plus, they'd have to sacrifice one of their own to do it...even less likely.

I don't claim to know anything except that there are major parts of this story that we don't know.

I welcome honest, political-free spectulation from all members.

 

[BPSCG]

I welcome honest, political-free spectulation from all members.

I'm going to disappoint you by throwing a political wrench into the machinery.

She lives in Bethesda, MD. She gave $2,000 to the Kerry campaign on 3/14/2004, and $5,000 to the Democratic Party of Ohio on 10/5/2004. There’s also a $500 contribution to the DNC on 10/29/2004.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

She maxed out her allowable contribution to Kerry, then gave the $5,000 to the Ohio Democratic party just weeks before the election, when everyone and his cats knew the election was going to hinge on Ohio, and another $500 to the DNC just days before the election.

She's clearly a very strong partisan Democrat. She has a right to be, even as a federal employee, but she's throwing a lot of money at her guys; as a fed, even if she's some senior executive, she makes maybe $100k or so a year. That's almost tithing.

Funny, the Washington Post and NY Times missed those contributions to the DNC and Ohio Democratic party. Too busy trying to get the goods on Scooter Libby, I guess. The bloggers are beating the MSM again.
[/FONT]

 

[Rob Lister]

The facts you present, while they may be true, do not account for the inconsistancies unless you think my last option is the correct one. I happen to think that is the most improbable. This is a crafted "leak", seemingly.

 

[BobK]

Speculating here.

It could have been set up as a sting operation, with a targeted group given bogus information about the existence of foreign prisons. A story like that would be capable of double duty if it eventually got leaked. Interrogators would gain leverage when interviewing by mentioning the possibility of sending the terrorist to one of those prisons. Limiting access to the bogus info would aid in identifying the leaker.

I think there's been a couple investigations overseas that came up dry trying to find the prisons.

The existence or non-existence of foreign prisons doesn't mean the info wasn't classified. The government can put a classification on anything it wants. Probably even a ham sandwich.

 

[jj]

The government can put a classification on anything it wants. Probably even a ham sandwich.

I believe that the FOIA puts some limits on what can be classified, doesn't it? Probably not much in the present day, though.

 

[fishbob]

Andrew (no relation) McCarthy put it the best I've seen so far:
"The case against McCarthy, moreover, is said to involve not just a single illegal disclosure of the Nation's secrets, but several. One prominent instance is reported to involve alerting the press that the CIA had arrangements with overseas intelligence services for the detention of high-level al Qaeda detainees captured in the war on terror — from whom the culling of intelligence is critical to the safety of Americans."

Minor digression: I have seen more and more of this lately - the chicken excrement excuse - and it is beginning to wear on my nerves. Lets toss our principles because we are afraid. Lets give up some rights so we can feel safe. Critical to the safety of Americans my @$$. ChickensH+t.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[BPSCG]

Lets give up some rights so we can feel safe. Critical to the safety of Americans my @$$. ChickensH+t.

Um, IIRC, the story about the overseas prisons said they're sending al Qaeda people there.

What rights do you believe they should have?

 

[pgwenthold]

And yet, she is not.

Consider, They used the polygraph results to [publically] fire her for releasing information on a program that they [still] don't admit really existed.

Something doesn't add up. Somebody is being played.

I suggest not a 48 hour rule, but perhaps a 48 day rule.

There is much we don't know.

Heck, if nothing else it shows we maybe should wait until the weekend is over.

 

[BPSCG]

And the MSM continues to try to spin this story.

The Washington Post's web site carries a story this morning headlined, "Dismissed CIA Officer Denies Leak Role."

Above that story is a banner that says, "The Plame Investigation", with links to six other Plame-related stories.

The the right of the McCarthy story are three more panels. The top one is a link to an online chat that will be held later today regarding the McCarthy affair.

The next one down is headed, "Understanding the Plame Affair." The first link under that head is "Key Players in the CIA Leak Case," and has nothing to do with the McCarthy case, doesn't even mention the connections between McCarthy and Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame - it's all about the alleged White House leak about Plame's identity.

The next link under that head is labelled "Photos," and has a thumbnail of Scooter Libby, with a link to "Career Highlights of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby."

I count seventeen links on this page to the Plame/Libby investigation. One to the McCarthy.

The McCarthy firing has nothing to do with the Plame/Libby case, as far as we know. But the Washington Post evidently wants you to think it does.

 

[pgwenthold]

On the contrary, instead of the MSM "spinning the story," we are finding out that perhaps it aren't quite as simple as it was made out to be when the CIA released it last week.

As others have asked, why hasn't she been arrested?

 

[gnome]

Um, IIRC, the story about the overseas prisons said they're sending al Qaeda people there.

What rights do you believe they should have?

I believe fishbob may be referring to our potential right to know what our government is doing.

For me, it depends on whether our government is breaking the law or concealing a policy that voters deserve to know.

 

[BPSCG]

The facts you present, while they may be true, do not account for the inconsistancies unless you think my last option is the correct one. I happen to think that is the most improbable. This is a crafted "leak", seemingly.

Maybe. Maybe DoJ is still putting its own case together. The standards for firing someone over misconduct are not as rigorous as convicting them of a felony - even in government employment. Keep in mind, a prosecution involving confidential information is going to be tough. Look at the Moussaoui case.

 

[BPSCG]

I believe fishbob may be referring to our potential right to know what our government is doing.

Um, you don't have a right to know everything our government is doing. That's why some information is secret. I have an old friend, a poker buddy, who has a TS clearance; he does auditing work for a government contractor. None of us know what he does beyond that. The most specific he ever gets with us is, "I get a phone call, they tell me what building to go to, and I go there... Is it my bet?"

For me, it depends on whether our government is breaking the law or concealing a policy that voters deserve to know.

And who decides whether you "deserve to know"?

If someone is breaking the law at the CIA, you're supposed to report it to their inspector general's office. That's the legal alternative to calling the WaPo.

 

[wastepanel]

If someone is breaking the law at the CIA, you're supposed to report it to their inspector general's office. That's the legal alternative to calling the WaPo.

What if, like this woman, you worked at the inspector general's office? Who do you go to?

Note: I am not defending her. Just interested in the hierarchy.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Perhaps there are agents in the intelligence community who don't trust the President's inability to maintain his common sense and NOT sabotage their identities on a whim. I'd also be interested in how keeping secret prisons in other countries helping our national security?

Ah yes, Valerie PLame - the "undercover operative". Except she wasn't - at least as defined by the law. I like the "on a whim" approach just because that is the same brand of BS. Plame's husband had been busy lying and squawking in a partisan effort to 'get Bush' - never mind the facts of the matter of course.

As for how keeping secret prisons is helping our national security the honest answer is that I do not know for sure. What I do know is that with all the fuss about Gitmo I would be more inclined to keep these jerks somewhere where people aint whining about it.

I'm not saying it's right, but the President has kept an "us against them" policy regarding those not loyal to his policies. Maybe there are those who feel it's their right to "fight back" against what they believe is wrong.

I would agree with that - except that it strikes me as gratuitous when one has joined an agency like the CIA. If one is truly concerned about exposing and bringing to light egregious abuse (or on the other side of the coin tough self defense..) then the leaker should have become a journalist.

Wars are not some sort of surgical atmosphere where it pays to be nice. Win it first.

 

[BPSCG]

What if, like this woman, you worked at the inspector general's office? Who do you go to?

Note: I am not defending her. Just interested in the hierarchy.

I don't know what the procedures are in an IG office (thirty years working for Uncle and I've never come remotely close to seeing anything that looked like official malfeasance). If she works in the IG's office, I assume it's her job to deal with it. I suppose that means start an inquiry/investigation, and file charges or whatever, if it comes to that. Calling the newspapers is, I would assume, way down the list.