- Share This Post
- submit
- 5
-
Sparkle (0)
It would seem that there is a lot of talk these days about intelligence leaks and there appears to be little consistency with regard to how the leaks are handled, either politically or legally.
Taylor Marsh, writing over at Firedoglake, takes on this issue and questions why there seem to be different standards depending on who is doing the leaking:
Okay, let me get this straight. The Leaker in Chief, George W. Bush, can leak information to Lewis Libby, with no repercussions whatsoever. Deadeye can do the same. But a whistleblower, a member of the CIA's Inspector General's office, leaks the existence of illegal black sites to a reporter, because she feels something wrong is being done in the name of the American people, and she gets fired. Not only fired, but pulled out and identified as nothing short of a traitor.
In other words, the Nixon rule really does apply. If the president does it it's okay, but if it's done by a whistleblower she gets fired, with humiliation and the "traitor" tag waiting for her on her departure. Even people who don't like Mary McCarthy are saying something smells.
Ms. Marsh is referring specifically to the revelation that a high-level intelligence officer has been fired by the CIA for giving information to the Washington Post's Dana Priest about the U.S. Government's secret prisons, or black sites, as they are also known.
Ms. McCarthy, the CIA official in question, was likely fired for violating the terms of a contract she signed which stipulated she would not disclose any intelligence information to outside sources. However, there is the question of when a leak is more than a leak and when does the person become a whistleblower who actually is performing a service to the community (or nation) by disclosing government wrongdoing? Think Deep Throat.
There are laws that protect whistleblowers in certain circumstances but where intelligence is concerned, it gets more tricky.
And speaking of intelligence leaks, here's another allegation that will soon light up the blogosphere like the NY skyline during a lightening storm:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday
[snip]
The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.
The question is, what happens when our government officials selectively leak intelligence information for political purposes? Do the same legal rules apply? Can they be "fired" like Ms. McCarthy was? Or is it yet another executive privilege being exercised?
Stay tuned...
