| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| CIA Leaker Not Likely to be Prosecuted |
| 2006-04-27 |
| Continuing a trend that began last year with the Justice Department's sweetheart plea bargain for confessed national security document thief Sandy Berger, department lawyers are said to be reluctant to prosecute accused CIA leaker Mary McCarthy. The National Review Online's Byron York reports: "Since the firing of McCarthy rested in large part on her failure of a CIA-administered polygraph test - evidence that would not be admissible in court - the Justice Department might ultimately decide not to take action against her." A decision not to prosecute McCarthy would come despite what sounds like a smoking gun confession, with the CIA saying last week that an unnamed officer - identified by others as McCarthy - admitted to having "unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information." |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #7 This is very interesting. You should see this site: www.saneworks.us. |
| Posted by: DanWinters 2006-04-27 20:12 |
#6 Interesting choice of words, eL. A long American Thinker post ends thus,Speaking of dealing in commodities, this whole affair brings us back to square one and Mary McCarthy. One of her previous employers was Beri, SA. Possibly by coincidence Beri provides a Mineral Extraction Risk Assessment service for up to 145 countries that are expected to show rapid growth in oil, gas, and mineral extraction capacity. If one had advance access to economic intelligence and had fostered close business ties over the years with uranium producers, huge financial gains would be possible. Could the Wilson-McCarthy-Africa connection may indicate another instance of US intelligence and Foreign Service personnel taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and lax security in third world countries for personal gain? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-27 18:36 |
| #5 Probably some ex-Clintonoid in DOJ ensuring the prosecution won't come to pass. Thick as thieves |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-04-27 17:22 |
| #4 It also depends on how explicit her confession was, and the "deal" that was cut. I don't think she was with the Agency very long though. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-27 16:03 |
| #3 TW, this will be the nub. If they try to deny her pension without prosecuting her, I expect her to sue for wrongful termination. The government would have to either cave or prosecute the case they apparently do not want to. I suspect the CIA HR attorneys have been all over this. That's why she wasn't terminated until a week before her resignation became effective. I'd bet the objective of her firing is to cleanse the CIA, not to punish a wrongdoer. More moles will follow Mary Looselips. Whether to prosecute her is a tough call, especially without all the information. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-27 15:55 |
| #2 Since Ms. McCarthy was fired, does that mean she loses her pension? Most of those fired for cause, as she was, will not get lucrative book and speaking contracts, because most of them will not be as fascinating to the opposition as is the pet contact of Dana whatshername of the Washington Post. The probablility of being despised by former colleagues as well as pensionless can focus the mind wonderfully. A few more firings will change the atmosphere at the CIA nicely. A wholesale clean-out will do the job better, of course. Carry on, Mr. Goss. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-04-27 15:48 |
| #1 Lovely, now we can look forward to many more willing leakers. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-04-27 14:42 |