CIA officer fired for leak of classified information

The head of the CIA, Porter Goss, has confirmed that a CIA officer has been fired for leaking sensitive information. The information, listed as "classified", dealt with overseas prison sites that hold suspected terrorists. A story on them by Washington Post writer Dana Priest led to her receiving a Pulitzer Prize last week.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA has fired one of its officers for leaking classified information, an agency spokeswoman said Friday.

The officer admitted to "unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence including operational information," said spokeswoman Michelle Neff.

Neff declined to divulge the officer's name or position, or what specifically was leaked.

A U.S. official said the person's name has been turned over to the Justice Department, where a determination will be made on whether to file criminal charges.
www.cnn.com...

My personal feelings are that the officer, if guilty, should receive the maximum penalty allowed by law. This is serious stuff - not just a run of the mill story. It has national security implications. People in positions of power and trust with loose lips need to be removed from their jobs like weeds from a garden.

Well, i would argue that the prison sites break international law and thus speaking out makes him a Whistleblower. Internationally legal or not, they are immoral and lack even the most basic human rights -- not any way to win the 'War on Terror'.

My first thought when i saw this headline though, was Bush is aloud to leak classified information, but this guy isnt? What makes bush so freakin' above the law. He's the President, but the day that makes you above the law, is the day America is a Dictatorship.

www.abqtrib.com...

sounds like there is going to be a fight from the other end...because she says she didnt do any such thing and her lawyer claims she didnt have access... she was days away from retirement, thats interesting.

Originally posted by jsobecky
People in positions of power and trust with loose lips need to be removed from their jobs like weeds from a garden.

Completely agree jsobecky.

The following article also seems relevant to this thread:

news.bbc.co.uk...

"US President George W Bush authorised the leak of classified material to the media to defend the invasion of Iraq, a former White House aide has testified."

So should GWB be dug up and put on the compost heap?

No, because he did nothing illegal. It happens all the time, as a matter of fact.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only person indicted in the ongoing CIA leak investigation, told a grand jury that he had permission to discuss with reporters the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq weapons systems.

Nothing in the papers indicate Bush or Cheney told Libby to reveal the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, nor do they suggest that either the president or vice president did anything illegal.

www.foxnews.com...

yep, good old fox news to tell us that bush did nothing wrong.....yea...right...

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, because he did nothing illegal. It happens all the time, as a matter of fact.

Right then. Fox News defends Bush and Cheney so they MUST be innocent.....



Your 'hardline stance' about removing 'weeds from the garden' suddenly seems to be softening, no? It seems to me that your CIA 'bad guy' was at least making known an issue of public interest. The same can't be said for Bush who (if true) seemed to be acting out of vindictiveness and petulance.

[edit on 25/4/2006 by 5ick8oy]

[edit on 25/4/2006 by 5ick8oy]

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, because he did nothing illegal. It happens all the time, as a matter of fact.

Fox News? C'mon man, please. This whole thing seems VERY fishy, only days away from retirement?

And im not sure, but when exactly was the president/vice-president granted power to leak classified CIA information?

Originally posted by ekul08

Fox News? C'mon man, please. This whole thing seems VERY fishy, only days away from retirement?

And im not sure, but when exactly was the president/vice-president granted power to leak classified CIA information?

The day they took office.

The executive branch is the source of all classification guidance and authority, and the Prez and VP are the two highest members of said branch. Ergo, they have the ultimate authority to determine what is classified and what is not. The president can declassify anything he wants on any given time. Now, there may be political ramifications and fallout, but it is the perogative of the POTUS to do so...

mod edit: quote clarity

[edit on 27-4-2006 by sanctum]

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Right then. Fox News defends Bush and Cheney so they MUST be innocent.....

Your 'hardline stance' about removing 'weeds from the garden' suddenly seems to be softening, no? It seems to me that your CIA 'bad guy' was at least making known an issue of public interest. The same can't be said for Bush who (if true) seemed to be acting out of vindictiveness and petulance.

Your words, not mine, Sick8oy. Please don't try to deflect the debate by trying to label me as something you know nothing about.

My "hardline stance" is softening? To you, who wants to cover every conceivable case with the same brush, it seems like that. You should take some time to learn something about the law. Pyros did, and he states the truth in his reply.

You know, I could have used any number of sources instead of Fox News for the link. I chose not to. I don't have to defend Fox News. But that's the only argument that you, ekul08, and grimreaper797 can come up with. It's not even a valid argument. It's weak.

well then dont post fox news, because your right, you dont have to defend it since no matter what you say its an extremely bias news source.

second i would be surprised if they ever left evidence of wrong doing, if they ever actually directly did it. They dont need to do it themselves, they have some one lower do it.

a valid arguement? how can you have a valid arguement that bush and cheney OKed him releasing info on Valarie Wilson when libby himself denies releasing the info?

I'm just wondering...who harmed our nation more??

our vp, who went far out of his way to fight a bill that would name torture illegal, as if we didn't already have enough laws on the books that names it illegal, not to mention a few treaties...

or maybe a few sadistic pics leaked from the abu garib prison, or should I say the acts that created those sadistic pics??

or maybe it was whoever ordered things like what this article is describing..

news.yahoo.com

this lady claims she didn't do it, there are others in the cia who are willing to state that she was in not position to have this information. if you read the original article by Time, it kind of indicates that there was more than one leakers....where's the rest?? or are they happy just nailing this one person?

you can harp and rag about this one little lady with the susposedly big mouth all you want. but well, if others weren't damaging our country and breaking our laws to begin with, there would have been nothing worthwhile to leak!!!

mod edit: fixed link

[edit on 27-4-2006 by sanctum]

Everyone is jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Wait till more facts surface.

One fact that does seem to have come out already is that polygraphs were taken by many at the CIA and from the results of those it seems that Mary McCarthy was fired. The inference is that she failed a polygraph, a bad thing for a CIA employee. Mary McCarthy for her part is saying through others that she did not leak that material. Time will tell what really happened.

Though the CIA did not name the person who leaked classified material, it sounds as if the person fired did admit to leaking the said material. Put two and two together.

At the very least it seems the person the CIA fired, leaked some information that was classified, which has caused harm with some nations.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Your words, not mine, Sick8oy. Please don't try to deflect the debate by trying to label me as something you know nothing about.

What ARE you talking about? You are not making any sense.

My "hardline stance" is softening? To you, who wants to cover every conceivable case with the same brush, it seems like that.

Now who is deflecting the debate and labelling? You started the thread, please try to be constructive in your replies. I'm giving my point of view. If you cannot respond to it without slinging mud you clearly cannot have a very strong argument.

You should take some time to learn something about the law. Pyros did, and he states the truth in his reply.

Don't be so patronising. And of COURSE you are going to be more sympathetic to Pyros as his viewpoint is more aligned with yours. A bit arrogant to declaring it 'the truth' though (IMO).

You know, I could have used any number of sources instead of Fox News for the link.

Maybe you could. But you didn't. And some of us do not consider Fox News to be an 'impartial' observer in such things.

I don't have to defend Fox News. But that's the only argument that you, ekul08, and grimreaper797 can come up with. It's not even a valid argument. It's weak.

If you are going to quote Fox News as 'the truth' I believe you DO have to defend your source. Perhaps if all you can do is respond to challenge by throwing childish comments about, you should avoid raising such issues in the first place.

Originally posted by pavil
Everyone is jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Wait till more facts surface.

One fact that does seem to have come out already is that polygraphs were taken by many at the CIA and from the results of those it seems that Mary McCarthy was fired. The inference is that she failed a polygraph, a bad thing for a CIA employee. Mary McCarthy for her part is saying through others that she did not leak that material. Time will tell what really happened.

Though the CIA did not name the person who leaked classified material, it sounds as if the person fired did admit to leaking the said material. Put two and two together.

At the very least it seems the person the CIA fired, leaked some information that was classified, which has caused harm with some nations.

was is the leaker that harmed the US and it's allies, or the actions of the US and it's allies that harmed themselves though. I mean, I'm sorry, but how long do you think you can go around kidnapping people around the globe and scurrying them off to secret prisons in other nations before people start noticing? you don't think that many of the people in Iraq knew what was going on in their prisons before those pictures came out....I think they did. it's like saying that if this group of people over here robbed a bank, and ripped off a few billion dollars, well the person who exposed them for their crimes was that one that harmed the customers of the bank, the FDIC, ect. it doesn't make sense. it was the actions themselves that did the harm. they were illegal according to international treaties, not to mention our own. they were found to be very repulsive to many americans, contrary to our values. and well, that's what gave this story so much momentum to carry it....there are legal ways to gain custody of criminals in such from other countries and well, I can imagine the reaction in america if china dicided to pick and chose people here that they deemed dangerous to them and then just started kidnapping them off the street!! our government should have known better to begin with. follow the danged laws, or change them...don't just ignore them!

Original Washington Post Article

I personally have no qualms about holding Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaida, Ramzi Binalshibh and their ilk for as long as necessary to get every ounce of information out of them. The CIA has been told to disrupt terrorist attacks before they happen, information is the key to doing that.

One can not say with certainty that these people have divulged information that has prevented attacks, why would we broadcast that info to the enemy.
I am pretty sure that it has, at the very least, caused Bin Laden to change quite a few of his plans. That to me is worth the indefinite incarceration of these people. These are pretty heinous people that we are talking about interrogating for information and we are trying to prevent another major attack.

I know that some people disagree with with this policy. However that disagreement does not allow them to leak highly classified information that have caused problems in the running of this policy. They are not the policy makers.

What if someone would have leaked our War Plan in the first Gulf War because they opposed that war? We are at war, we need the information these people have about how Al Qaeda operates in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.

It doesnt matter at this point who is wrong because it seems to me an old saying has perfect relavence here. Two wrongs dont make a right!!! The guy leaking info might have felt he was doing the right thing, and maybe he was. Well find out when, as someone said earlier, the smoke clears. Jumping to conclusions either way doesnt make anyone right at this point because we dont know enough yet.

from grimreaper797
well then dont post fox news, because your right, you dont have to defend it since no matter what you say its an extremely bias news source.

Excuse me??!! Who the hell are you to tell me who to use as a news source? If I use a source that states something false, then you have a case. Otherwise, don't be telling me who to use.

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
What ARE you talking about? You are not making any sense.

This is what you said, and tried to make it seem like it was my position:

Right then. Fox News defends Bush and Cheney so they MUST be innocent.....

Your words, not mine. Defend them, or don't clutter the board with such tripe.

My "hardline stance" is softening? To you, who wants to cover every conceivable case with the same brush, it seems like that.

Now who is deflecting the debate and labelling? You started the thread, please try to be constructive in your replies. I'm giving my point of view. If you cannot respond to it without slinging mud you clearly cannot have a very strong argument.

Mud-slinging? Stop playing the poor little victim. I say something about a CIA officer breaking an oath and leaking classified info, and right away you go into your "Bush did something wrong, too" mode. That crap is getting pretty tiresome. Don't deflect the topic. If you want to discuss Bush, start your own thread.

Don't be so patronising. And of COURSE you are going to be more sympathetic to Pyros as his viewpoint is more aligned with yours. A bit arrogant to declaring it 'the truth' though (IMO).

It's the truth because it is fact. Learn your history.

You know, I could have used any number of sources instead of Fox News for the link.

Maybe you could. But you didn't. And some of us do not consider Fox News to be an 'impartial' observer in such things.

See my reponse to grimreaper797. Your argument is pretty weak if you need to attack the source instead of debating the facts.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Mud-slinging? Stop playing the poor little victim. I say something about a CIA officer breaking an oath and leaking classified info, and right away you go into your "Bush did something wrong, too" mode. That crap is getting pretty tiresome. Don't deflect the topic. If you want to discuss Bush, start your own thread.

It's hardly 'deflecting the topic' to point out the apparent double standards at play. In fact I think it is entirely relevant to your initial post where you stated that "people in positions of power and trust with loose lips need to be removed from their jobs like weeds from a garden"

It's the truth because it is fact. Learn your history.

Fact? History? You should look at the following thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Facts and opinions are not the same thing. Just because you choose to believe one story does not make it a fact.

See my reponse to grimreaper797. Your argument is pretty weak if you need to attack the source instead of debating the facts.

Excuse me? If your source is not a credible one (and to many, Fox News is far from credible) then attacking the source of your 'so called' facts is perfectly justified. Anyway, your mind is clearly closed to anything approaching a rational debate and I refuse to keep increasing your points by continuing with this pointless discussion.