| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() Impeach George Bush Latest News from the Gulag Debacle Among the many cover-ups Bush's been persuing (the first were the Enron/Cheney Lunches - where are his expense reports? The Senate would like to know). Source: Washington Post, 2006-04-25 Candidate: Republican Party By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, April 25, 2006; A01 A lawyer representing fired CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy said yesterday that his client did not leak any classified information and did not disclose to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest the existence of secret CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists. The statement by Ty Cobb, a lawyer in the Washington office of Hogan & Hartson who said he was speaking for McCarthy, came on the same day that a senior intelligence official said the agency is not asserting that McCarthy was a key source of Priest's award-winning articles last year disclosing the agency's secret prisons. McCarthy was fired because the CIA concluded that she had undisclosed contacts with journalists, including Priest, in violation of a security agreement. That does not mean she revealed the existence of the prisons to Priest, Cobb said. Cobb said that McCarthy, who worked in the CIA inspector general's office, "did not have access to the information she is accused of leaking," namely the classified information about any secret detention centers in Europe. Having unreported media contacts is not unheard of at the CIA but is a violation of the agency's rules. In a statement last Friday, the agency said it had fired one of its officers for having unauthorized conversations with journalists in which the person "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence." Intelligence officials subsequently acknowledged that the official was McCarthy and said that Priest is among the journalists with whom she acknowledged sharing information. Priest won the Pulitzer Prize this month for a series of articles she wrote last year about the intelligence community, including the revelation of the existence of CIA-run prisons in East European countries. The Post withheld the names of the countries at the Bush administration's request, and it attributed the information to current and former intelligence officials from three continents. The articles sparked a wide-ranging CIA investigation that included polygraphing scores of officials who worked in offices privy to information about the secret prisons, including McCarthy and her boss, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Nowhere in the CIA statement last week was McCarthy accused of leaking information on the prisons, although some news accounts suggested that the CIA had made that claim. Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters. McCarthy, 61, who earlier held senior posts at the White House and the National Intelligence Council (NIC), has declined requests for comment. But Cobb said she was "devastated" that her government career of more than two decades will "forever be linked with misinformation about the reasons for her termination," and he said that her firing 10 days before she was to retire was "certainly not for the reasons attributed to the agency." His comments constituted the first statement from her camp since her firing became public last week. A onetime Africa specialist who served in the early 1990s as the NIC's senior officer responsible for warning of imminent security threats to the country, McCarthy went on to help oversee U.S. intelligence programs on the National Security Council from 1996 to 2001. In that role, she had access to details of every covert intelligence action authorized by the president. Cobb said McCarthy had planned for some time to leave the CIA to pursue a career in public interest law. She finished night courses for a law degree at Georgetown University and passed the bar exam in November, he said. She formally began her retirement process in December, stopped going to her office on Feb. 7, and was to complete a standard retirement training course and cease employment on April 30. Cobb said that the polygraph tests and interviews that led to her firing came after she had initiated her retirement, and that she did not quit because she anticipated the agency's action. Although not addressing all these details, the senior intelligence official confirmed that McCarthy was preparing to retire and said she will retain her government pension despite the agency's decision. "Firing someone who was days away from retirement is the least serious action they could have taken," said a former intelligence official who is friendly with McCarthy but spoke on the condition of anonymity because of speculation on the administration's motive. "That's certainly enough to frighten those who remain in the agency." Where Cobb's account and the CIA's account differed yesterday is on whether McCarthy discussed any classified information with journalists. Intelligence sources said that the inspector general's office was generally aware of a secret prison program but that McCarthy did not have access to specifics, such as prison locations. The investigation that led to McCarthy's firing is one of several probes initiated by the Bush administration into high-profile leaks. Another is underway into the New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on a warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency. But it remains unclear whether any of the investigations will result in criminal charges. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said yesterday that the FBI has not opened a formal probe into the prisons disclosure because the CIA has yet to send a formal criminal "referral" to the Justice Department on that issue. "We do have investigations going," FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said during a visit to the field office in Charlotte, the Associated Press reported. "Leaking of classified materials is a concern for those agencies that have classified materials." Fredrick P. Hitz, who was inspector general at the CIA from 1990 to 1998, said his office was the subject of a leak inquiry after The Post wrote about a classified report he submitted to Congress on the Aldrich H. Ames espionage case. "I was polygraphed several times, as were some of my staff," Hitz said in an interview. No source for the leak was found and the investigation was terminated. Several national security law experts said yesterday that, looking at what has been publicly disclosed so far, prosecutors would have a difficult time building a criminal case against McCarthy. Any information obtained during polygraph examinations is essentially useless to prosecutors, since generally it is inadmissible in criminal courts. In addition, federal espionage laws do not outlaw all disclosures of classified information, at least not specifically. Instead, a collection of separate statutes prohibits unauthorized disclosures of certain categories of information -- such as intercepted communications or codes -- and violations often hinge on important details that are still unclear in the CIA prisons case. Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute at George Washington University, said he does not think the Post article includes the kind of operational details that a prosecutor would need to build a case. "It's the fact of the thing that they're trying to keep secret, not to protect sources and methods, but to hide something controversial," he said. "That seems like a hard prosecution to me." Kate Martin, executive director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that "even if the espionage statutes were read to apply to leaks of information, we would say the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing leaks of information which reveal wrongful or illegal activities by the government." Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report. Add a comment to this Message in our Forums. While you're at it, check out our forums too! User Originated Comments: From: Tom Fields 2006-05-03 00:00:00 thank you for taking the time to consider this email. it is being written with a sense of urgency due to recent developments. my personal observation is an american citizen is about to be given a hearing on mental competency because she attempted to slow the rush to war in iraq and has connections to the white house. she was charged some time ago as a unregistered lobbyist. without trial, she was sent to carswell, texas seven months ago for "psychiatric observation ." without representation, she is about to have a hearing where it will be decided whether she should be permanently committed and forcibly medicated. additional detail can be found at : www.jbfields3.com/jbf.htm see http://jayspolitics.blogspot.com/ i am asking that you use your influence to aid susan in receiving due process and appropriate representation. i frankly find myself frightened by this case knowing that by raising my voice i too could be subject to retaliation by others claiming to be acting on behalf of the government. but this is the story of susan lindauer. she acted with the knowledge of the cia in the past in attempting to be a bridge between two cultures whose relationship is one of misunderstanding and mistrust. my understanding is she carried a communication from the iraq government to the white house. her cousin andy card was chief of staff at the white house. the message from iraq was that inspections could resume with out any substantial conditions from the iraq government. susan was charged for acting as an unregister lobbyist for a foreign interest, i believe due to reimbursement for her travel expenses. mind you, she notified many government officials prior to her meetings regarding her role as a behind the scenes facilitator of dialogue. she traveled from washington, d.c. to iraq and returned with correspondence. the charge was brought more than two years ago. seven months ago she was forcibly institutionalized in carswell, texas for observation. her uncle, ted, recently traveled to carswell texas to visit her and was denied access. on may 4, 2006 there will be a hearing to determine whether susan is mentally competent and if determined to not be she will be committed permanently to the mental institution and also forcibly medicated. my understanding is ted has suggested a less austere outpatient program. please note susan is not an enemy combatant picked up in afghanistan or iraq. she is a u.s. citizen, activist and patriot from alaska who was living in the suburbs of washington d.c. this patriot is susan lindauer, but it could be your mother, wife, sister or daughter. i do not believe susan is a threat to herself or anyone else. i am a concerned citizen - perceiving an abuse of governmental authority. susan should be entitled to due process and representation. please research this story yourself, if you must, but i ask you to consider taking an interest in the case and to use your skills, talents, and resources to prevent this governmental action from being unchallenged. our diligence is essential in controlling and shaping the nature of our government. respectfully submitted, tom fields germantown, tn From: Linda 2006-04-25 00:00:00 who's to say that w didn't disclose the cl-ssified info? he did it before...wolf!! |
|
Related News |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() owned by TheTIP. [ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ] NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
Thetip.org assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in these materials. Thetip.org makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Further, Thetip.org cannot edit, control, review for truth or accuracy, or screen for defamation or obscenity any content provided to the Website by a third party through postings, uploaded files, or any other form of communication, nor can Thetip.org ensure prompt removal of defamatory, obscene, inappropriate or unlawful content after transmission. Any such third party postings, files or other communications do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or positions of Thetip.org. Thetip.org makes no, and expressly disclaims any, representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the Website, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Thetip.org makes no, and expressly disclaims any, warranties, express or implied, regarding the correctness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and reliability of the text, graphics, links to other sites and any other items accessed from or via this Website or the Internet, or that the services will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components. Under no circumstances shall Thetip.org, its affiliates, or any of their respective partners, officers, directors, employees, agents or representatives be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for lost revenues, lost profits, or otherwise, arising from or in connection with this Website, the materials contained herein, or the Internet generally. |