| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| CIA defends McCarthy firing |
| 2006-04-26 |
| The Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday defended the firing of Mary O. McCarthy, the veteran officer who was dismissed last week, and challenged her lawyer's statements that Ms. McCarthy never provided classified information to the news media. But intelligence officials would not say whether they believed that Ms. McCarthy had been a source for a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles in The Washington Post about secret C.I.A. detention centers abroad. Media accounts have linked Ms. McCarthy's firing to the articles, but the C.I.A. has never explicitly drawn such a connection. In response to questions Tuesday, the intelligence officials declined to say whether discussion of the prisons had been part of what they described as a pattern of unauthorized contacts between Ms. McCarthy and reporters. One intelligence official, who was granted anonymity to speak more candidly about the sensitive issue, said it was unclear how much access Ms. McCarthy, who had been assigned to the agency's inspector general's office, had to specific details about the secret prisons. A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both." Ty Cobb, a lawyer representing Ms. McCarthy, said again on Tuesday that she never admitted divulging sensitive material. "She did not confess, orally or in writing, to leaking classified information," Mr. Cobb said. Since 2004, the inspector general's office has been investigating the agency's role in the interrogation and detention of high-level terrorist suspects, as well as its network of secret jails abroad. At a minimum, intelligence officials said, Ms. McCarthy's work in that office gave her access to some of the agency's most sensitive information, including details about highly secret "compartmented programs." Officials said that Ms. McCarthy's security clearance was pulled when she was fired, but that no consideration was given to taking away the pension she had earned as a career C.I.A. employee. Acting before Ms. McCarthy's dismissal, the House Intelligence Committee asked John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, to study whether it should be possible to take away a pension from a retiree who was subject to only administrative or civil punishment and not criminal prosecution. A provision in the intelligence reauthorization bill, which goes to the House floor Wednesday, gives Mr. Negroponte 90 days to study whether pensions of intelligence officers who leak classified information should be revoked. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #19 unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters You 'share' classified information with cleared personnel who have need-to-know. What she was doing is called 'divulging' classified information. It's a criminal offense and she should expect to pay the penalty. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-04-26 23:30 |
| #18 Can anybody here give me a link to the text of the oath she took? Got a nasty post in me but I need to fact-check my ass first... |
| Posted by: jay-dubya 2006-04-26 19:14 |
| #17 I thought spies who betrayed the company just 'disappeared.' Time passes and people and organizations go soft, I guess. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-04-26 19:13 |
| #16 Heh LH. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-04-26 16:39 |
| #15 Is that a definition of the route to Clintonist, lh? The Legacy. |
| Posted by: Hupirt Gluper2154 2006-04-26 13:58 |
| #14 This really is a watershed moment for anyone who ever dealt with classified information. Once and for all we need to put to bed the suggestion that leaking classified information becasue you think you are a "whistleblower" or need to get the "truth" out your personal sense of morality trumps classification rules! If they don't criminally prosecute someone caught this red-handed (like her former boss Sandy Burglar) the message cannot be clearer...... if you are important you get by, if you are just a hard-working intelligence professional, you go to jail. Pure crap if she doesn't lose her pension, and go to jail. And who is paying for the high-priced lawyer, and why? Why do Clintonistas keep popping up behind the release of classified materials and the inhibition of espionage investigations? (Think Wen Ho Lee, Loral Space Systems, the Able Danger Wall (Jaime Gorlick being on the 911 commission was just too cute)). |
| Posted by: JustAboutEnough! 2006-04-26 13:51 |
| #13 She was an ex-Catholic. She became a Communist, then turned against the USSR and became a Trotskyite, then became an anticommunist, though she never followed her friends who became conservatives. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-26 13:37 |
| #12 She's caught red handed, and she faces 10 years per count. I hope she drags more scum with her. This might also shut the mouths of |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-04-26 12:29 |
| #11 I just can't see Ty Cobb defending a Catholic LH, maybe the Peach has mellowed. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-04-26 12:18 |
| #10 Ms. McCarthy was pretty well paid as an NIO. She was also out of the CIA a couple years working at a think tank, and I suspect she was well paid there. And I think she has 'friends' who are 'helping' her with Mr. Cobb's services. My understanding is that Mr. Cobb worked with the Hildebeast on certain legal matters. Interesting how it all ties together, eh? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-04-26 11:59 |
| #9 The question I'm kind of curious about is how Mary McCarthy can afford the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. That is an interesting question. Who paid for Sandy Burglar's defense? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-04-26 11:56 |
| #8 The question I'm kind of curious about is how Mary McCarthy can afford the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. She must have been very thrifty with her government salary. she must still be getting royalties from Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, and from the film version of The Group. And at his age, Ty Cobb probably doesnt command a real high ourly rate. Im not letting this go. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-26 11:54 |
| #7 Ms. McCarthy will not be the last person to let go. This is the key. She is no longer relevant except as a pawn in the game with the rest of the conspirators. Relax, get some popcorn and enjoy the show. She's not going anywhere and she will be destroyed by the time this is over. The only remaining questions are how many go with her (any senators? any reporters?) and is the CIA cleaned out or should we still start from scratch. (I favor the later.) |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-26 11:41 |
| #6 The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both." I say again.....She signed a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT and a NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT!!! What's the PROBLEM???? TRY HER FOR TREASON!!!! |
| Posted by: ARMYGUY 2006-04-26 11:30 |
| #5 Right, H&H is spendy. Look for a full court pity party on this one by media and donks. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-26 11:27 |
| #4 The question I'm kind of curious about is how Mary McCarthy can afford the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. She must have been very thrifty with her government salary. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-04-26 10:22 |
| #3 My guess is Ty Cobb is playing a PR game in hope the Feds will go light on his client. If they have a cofession on tape (like they say) she has very little chance of beating this. Also I doubt she is covered by any whistle-blower rule, but that reamins to be seen. Goss was right to polygraph the senior staff and I suspect Ms. McCarthy will not be the last person to let go. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-26 10:17 |
| #2 Ok, so CIA officer/writer Mary McCarthy (sic) is being defended by lawyer/baseball great Ty Cobb. Is Herbert Hoover going to be the judge? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-26 10:01 |
| #1 I have said it before and I repeat it. Cut of their supply of air. The CIA can't be a political organization. Those with political agendas need to be let go. Those who violate their trusted positions should pay a price worse than losing their pensions. That should be the least of their worries. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-04-26 03:50 |