Comments Posted By Andrew
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 58 Comments
BLOGBURST FOR FRED: MAN THE OARS AND START PULLING
He was up to $590 and change about an hour ago. I donated anyway, in light of the debates and that it's go time.
If he knocks Huck down, I'll donate again in lieu of the vote I won't be casting on Super Tuesday (I'll be out of the country).
Go, Fred, Go.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 11.01.2008 @ 10:20
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: TY COBB AIN'T NO BENCHWARMER
Prosecuting a leak case is not easy, which is why it happens so rarely. The only sure way is to catch someone red-handed, which almost never happens. There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible in court - they're unreliable.
According to news reports, she did admit to “having improper contact†with members of the press. This, in and of itself, is not a violation of her non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the government. However, people in positions like hers with high security clearances are generally prohibited from independent contacts with the press – contacts are supposed to go through the agency’s PR office. This appears to me to be the basis upon which she was fired - not for any actual leaking. Although the CIA probably believes she was a leaker, and the leaker for the black prisons program, there is no way to prove it, so I bet the chances of prosecution are pretty slim at this point. Even if charges are filed, conviction is unlikely.
As for a high-powered attorney like Ty Cobb, he may have to her and offered representation for free or a reduced rate. Or, like Rick said, someone else hired him and is footing the bill. This isn’t all that surprising since the left-wing sees the salivating right-wing blogspere going banana’s over this story. They obviously want to get this story over and done with and get back to Bush-bashing.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 25.04.2006 @ 09:06
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE BIRD THAT ISN'T SINGING
All these commenters on this and other blogs need to realize that leaking is a strong tradition in both parties. The current President is the one in recent memory who's attempted to totally quash them, which I do find admirable. As a member of the intelligence community, I don't like leaks, but the hyperbole I read on so many blogs is getting ridiculous. The diatribes against “left wing†leakers indicate they don’t think the right wing or republicans ever leak, which obviously isn’t the case. Just look at 90% of the House and Senate if you want proof.
In principle, I’m against all leaks, no matter the source. Most people in the intelligence community, especially since 9/11, have internal pathways to register dissent. They don’t always work however. Even when they don’t, there are much better ways to address the problem McCarthy (and others apparently) saw than to talk to the press. Leaking is the easy and cowardly way out in my opinion, but it’s also a dangerous one, as Ms. McCarthy is now learning
Comment Posted By Andrew On 25.04.2006 @ 08:53
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: McCARTHY AND THE DC REVOLVING DOOR
A few points:
If the leaked program was not real, then it couldn't be classified. You can't classify something that doesn't exist. Therefore you can't bust someone for leaking a nonexistant program.
2nd: We don't have evidence that she didn't try proper channels first. We don't have evidence that she did either.
3rd: We don't have evidence that she was the original leaker. The Priest story cited multiple sources. It's possible she confirmed what Priest already knew from European sources.
4th: If Ms. McCarthy get's busted (as she should if what we know now is the full story), then why did Sen Hatch get a pass back in Sept. 2001? Or Duetch, or any number of others? Hatch's leak was certainly worse than Ms. McCarthy's since he exposed sources and methods that led to a sorce drying up. http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200310010843.asp
Comment Posted By Andrew On 23.04.2006 @ 21:02
I have to agree with pretty much everything Mona says except for the wiretaps. I think their illegality is in a gray area, and members of both parties that have been fully briefed on the program support it. That is good enough for me, and I no longer have significant concerns about the program.
I think a point Mona makes but doesn't address directly is the question of oversight. In many areas, the executive has claimed it has sole propriety over certain activities. In my view, oversight is always needed to prevent abuses. I don't see how people can argue that a nation based at its core on shared authority and separation of powers can flatly state the President and the executive branch can create and run "black" prisons with no oversight at all. These prisons were so highly classified because they are illegal under US law as well as treaties we are signatories to. Every time that oversight is weak or nonexistent, abuses happen. Take a look at what the NRO did with its huge black budget when the agency was still classified for one example, or Iran-Contra, or the pallets of greenbacks that went into a black hole in Iraq.
One question that hasn’t been answered is why aren’t these prisoners sent to Gitmo? Why do they need special, secret prisons?
Here’s another thing that bothers me. I have been involved in what the military calls “personnel recovery†for many years. Part of “PR†is something called “SERE†or Search Evasion Resistance Escape. SERE school teaches military people how to evade in enemy territory, but it also teaches what the average American service member can expect if they’re captured. Based on experience from Vietnam and the first Gulf War, the course gives students a taste of the torture they are likely to encounter and methods to defeat that torture. It’s pretty much universally acknowledged among SERE experts that the kinds of torture techniques used against us in past wars were largely ineffective in obtaining substantive intelligence from victims. What’s surprising is that after 9/11, the techniques used in SERE school were adopted as valid interrogation techniques by military and other interrogators. So the techniques that we have said for decades are not only ineffective, but also immoral, are now adopted by US interrogators. Talk about moral relativism.
Finally, I think the CIA, as an organization, really wants no part of this. Running prisons and interrogations have never been part of the CIA mandate and are not an area of expertise for the Agency. Certainly the CIA is dysfunctional and partisan in many ways, but is that so surprising? Every administration that comes in changes their mandate and either authorizes or takes away power from them. When a mistake is made, it’s CIA employees who are hauled into court or fired, not the politicians that created and directed the policy. With all that, it’s no surprise the CIA is a risk-averse increasingly political organization. They have to be to operate in the Washington political environment. The CIA knows that the political winds will eventually change and another administration or Democratic congress will come in and then eat them for lunch while the politicians who authorized everything are milking the lecture circuit. The CIA needs a clear mission and set of rules to do that mission that doesn’t change every 4 years.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 23.04.2006 @ 15:42
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION
There is an even simpler explanation: McCarthy believed the secret prisons and rendition program were wrong and contrary to American law and values.
It's an easy shot to say that she was unhappy with her status in a "backwater," or that she didn't like the Bush administration (many in the CIA certainly don't). But she was in the IC for years and knew the secrecy of this program. She knew exactly who was "read in" to it. From what has been reported, it's pretty obvious that number was small. The problem with leaking information on such secret and small programs is that you will almost always get caught. She must have known this. I find it hard to believe she would risk her career and criminal sanction simply because she wasn't at the NIO level in the White House anymore. People go in and out of the White House all the time, especially when administrations change.
I have to take issue with Spook 86’s comments on her performance, or lack thereof, during her period as a warning officer.
I find it curious Spook 86 would finger McCarthy for failure to detect the first WTC bombing since the vast majority of the plot took place inside the US where the CIA has no authority or purview.
Furthermore, the Khobar Towers bombing was hardly a surprise. In fact, the official report on the bombing by the DoD says: Intelligence provided warning of the terrorist threat to U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/downing_rpt/unclf913.html
Everyone knew Khobar Towers was a target, but the local and theater Commanders didn’t put enough protections in place, and the Saudi’s refused to move the fence line further from the buildings.Finally, this leak did not reveal any sources or methods for intelligence. The program was classified at such a high level primarily because of the political risk our allies were taking by associating with such a program. Additionally, it was also politically sensitive here in the US. The leak’s main impact was to hurt our relations with foreign intelligence agencies. Although it is a serious matter and Ms. McCarthy was justly fired and possibly should be prosecuted, this incident hardly climbs to the level of some other leaks that do reveal intelligence sources and methods.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 23.04.2006 @ 00:29
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: WALKING BACK SLOWLY
As part of the intelligence community, I very seriously doubt this was any kind of sting operation. The CIA would never compromise an actual operation, especially a controversial and politically sensitive one such as this.
And one thing to note - people are assuming that McCarthy, on her own volition, told the reporter about this program. A perfectly reasonable scenario is that the reporter learned of the prisons from another source and McCarthy verified the information. I haven't read anything that indicates McCarthy was the original source of the leak. If I've missed it, please let me know.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 22.04.2006 @ 23:41
Marion Berryman,
How, in our current system, are republicans supposed to keep the congressional republicans in check? How do we make them accountable? How do we correct their failings? If not at the ballot box, then where and how?
Comment Posted By Andrew On 17.04.2006 @ 10:49
Whoops, scratch the last paragraph on my last comment, it snuck in there twice somehow
Comment Posted By Andrew On 17.04.2006 @ 10:24
Latte Liberal, I understand your analogy, but let me take it further:
If I was a "one issue" man, for instance, and only cared about tacos, then I bet one of the two would start making tacos (provided enough people wanted them), or maybe I might be able to find them at a very small local chain.
But let's say I don't just limit myself to tacos. Let's say I want tacos, but I also want Diet Dr. Pepper, and a Hot Apple Pie. A side salad with ranch dressing would be nice, but not as important as the big three. Now, my problem is one chain carries the Dr. P. The other chain has the apple pie and they have salad, but only with blue cheese. Neither chain carries tacos. Where should I go? And keep in mind that I only get to choose a single restaurant every four years and I have to eat three meals a day there.
Let’s assume I choose the chain that offers Dr. Pepper because they say the will start offering tacos in the future. I get my Dr. Pepper and find out 1/2 through it that there is a nice piece of cat poo at the bottom! This is like the Republicans who claim to be for small, limited government, but then cut taxes and raise spending through the roof, while expanding government and increasing its power over individual Americans. So now I'm reluctant to go back there and spend my money on another Dr. P for fear I'll be given another dose of cat feces, but I have to because I can’t choose another restaurant for 4 years.
That’s about how I feel about things if politics were transformed into fast food.
Furthermore, if I make a decision and go for the Taco's and Dr. Pepper, I find out 1/2 through the meal after I've already paid that there is a nice piece of cat poo at the botom of my Dr. Pepper! This is like the Republicans who claim to be for small, limited government, but then cut taxes and raise spending through the roof, while expanding government and increasing its power over individual Americans. So now I'm reluctant to go back there and spend my money on another Dr. P for fear I'll be given another dose of cat feces.
Comment Posted By Andrew On 17.04.2006 @ 10:21
