CIA Firing - Don't Stop There

The CIA announced today that it has fired an employee for leaking classified information to the news media.

The termination of the unidentified officer was announced to CIA employees yesterday after an internal investigation of the leaks. The terminated officer failed a polygraph examination, according to an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The information included highly classified material regarding a network of secret CIA prisons in foreign nations in which terrorist suspects were held, said the official who did not want to be identified. The prison system was revealed by The Washington Post last year. The Post's Dana Priest won the Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting this week for her stories about the secret prisons and other national security matters.

The fired employee is said to have given information not only to Priest but to other reporters as well.

Great. But let's not end it there. This leak undermined national security in some significant ways. The individual should be prosecuted to the full extent of existing law. And while they are at it, I want to see Priest invoke her Pulitzer Prize as a rationale for being complicit in the commission of a crime.

Certainly the inside leakers are the primary concern as Goss tries to instill a new sense of mission and a loyalty which transcends politics within the CIA. But if you want to address the entire problem, then perhaps the MSM would benefit from some of its members being inconvenienced with pesky items like Grand Juries and subpoenas to produce their notes.

This isn't simply a little graft over a political boondoggle, these are issues of great consequence they've been gleefully headlining on their front pages in an almost treasonous way.

Comments

[Laertes]

Priest did her job and did it well. And along the way, did her country a great service.

Quit yer bellyachin'. A simple "thank you" would be fine.

[Phoenix]

Hmm... I'm thinking Priest should be given a hell of a time instead of a Pulitzer. What warrants her receiving a Pulitzer? She was leaked information. So far, no one has found proof these prisons exists, so where is her mighty 'investigation'?

Why is it okay for a simple journalist feel noble about spilling secrets that compromise the integrity of necessary secret operations? That is sedition. We do not have the 'right' to know what goes on within the various branches of the CIA and FBI.

I can't believe I'm even talking about this. It is too stupid to think anyone might think it's okay to bust spy secrets.

[Laertes]

It'd be ever so much simpler if the government had some kind of office that could approve or reject stories before newspapers printed them. Then we wouldn't have all these problems.

[Phoenix]

Laertes,

It would be much less bureaucracy if we had newspaper editors with integrity approving or rejecting stories. We can't have the government's hand in everything, you know.

I still wonder about Priest, though. Great job! Now exactly where are those prisons?? Oh. And why might we have them? To practice the latest torture techniques, no doubt. Maybe Ms. Priest will find the answers to those queries and win another Pulitzer.

[Laertes]

You can't trust an editor's judgement. They sometimes get silly ideas about "the public's right to know" and such. They seem to have forgotten, I think, that they serve the state and not the so-called "public."

No, the only solution is for the government to step in and help out. It doesn't have to be a one-way street, though, with the government only deleting stories it doesn't like. I believe in a positive, though limited, role for government, and they ought to be able to contribute stories too.

[mylena]

laertes:hmm sounds like china to me...

[Phoenix]

Laertes,

Curiosity question: What do you think falls into the category of things the public does not have a right to know? (That is, if you think there is such a category.)

[Laertes]

Broadly speaking, the concept is simple. If I learn of it and think "Hey, I did NOT need to know that," then that's something the public doesn't have a right to know.

Such a standard, of course, is pretty subjective. So I'll take a stab at more detail. As a first pass, let's suppose that something the public doesn't have a right to know would have to meet all the following criteria:

1. The policy, event, secret, or whatever, is intended to advance a worthwhile cause.

2. It's something the government has the constitutional and legal authority to be doing.

(Note: If you can't imagine anything that passes test 1 but fails test 2, you're a servile toad who doesn't even understand the concept of liberty, a soverign people, and limited government.)

3. It can't be done properly without secrecy

4. If it were to be revealed, a person of integrity trying to keep the secret wouldn't be ashamed or embarassed--just disappointed. (This is, in general, my test for whether or not a lie is acceptable.))

5. It's something the government has a legal right to keep secret.

Some examples of things that pass all three tests, or at least don't obviously and always fail any of them.

The fact that a particular enemy code has been broken. The identities of covert agents. Details of the capabilities of weapon systems. Lawful instructions given to diplomats. Evidence gathered by prosecutors in a criminal investigation, prior to charges being filed.

Some examples of things that fail one or more of the tests:

Evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of government officials. Evidence of government officials overstepping their authority, in any way whatever. Evendence of monstrously immoral conduct on the part of government officials. Evidence gathered by defense attorneys in a criminal investigation. Evidence gathered by the prosecution about a subject, after that subject has been charged, if relevant to the charges filed.

In short, good leaks: The Pentagon Papers. The Secret Prison Network. Anything at all related to torture. Reporters talking about what they said to the Fitzgerald grand jury, even though Fitz surely didn't want them to. Mark Felt.

Bad leaks: Valerie Plame's identity. Aldritch Ames. Any of the multitudinous Starr Investigation leaks. Any hypothetical leak, should Fitzgerald's investigation ever spring one.

The government works for us. It should be treated like untrustworthy servant--with suspicion, vigilance, and a presumption of guilt.

I answered your question, so it's your turn: Can you give an example of a policy that would pass test 1 above, but fail test 2?

[Phoenix]

Laertes,

Very nice job. No. I can't give you an example of a policy that would pass test 1, but fail test 2. In your statement about test 1 you use these words: "1. The policy, event, secret, or whatever, is intended to advance a worthwhile cause." If you could rephrase it so the subjective 'worthwhile' were not included, it would be easier.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your opening statement listing your subjective viewpoints on this issue. It is almost impossible for us to detach from that and get into objective reality and stay there. Not many people can to begin with - exist for a length of time in objective reality. We view things from the perspective in which we have knowledge and in which we have sustainment of whatever belief system we are comfortable with - political, religious, cultural. Oh, and educational status. I would agree with almost everything you say, but I would find some things that would bother me too much to reach total agreement. That's no big deal - just the way it is. All the 'legal' things - yes.

Here's something you listed that would bother me: "Evidence gathered by defense attorneys in a criminal investigation. Evidence gathered by the prosecution about a subject, after that subject has been charged, if relevant to the charges filed." Beyond the chance of compromising legal proceedings, I don't think we need to feed the trolls/idiots who thrive on this stuff. When it's all over, fine.

The pubic's right to know has always bothered me, and I can't pinpoint when I became averse to the principles of this. Probably because so many stupid, stupid people say things based on no knowledge of facts. I believe this feeds prejudice, more stupidity, fear in some cases, outrage in others, and sometimes people get hurt.

This 'leak'? Bad news. Do we know all the facts? No. Do the papers? No. etc..... But damage has been done to some effort by the CIA to conduct legitimate maneuvers overseas.

That's it. You did a nice job. But even you had trouble keeping your subjectivity out, so it's easy to see why this is a thorny issue and why we would probably never totally agree. My subjective reality values things differently than yours; yours, differently than mine. The strange thing is that with 'secrets' and incomplete knowledge, you and I could never sit together in objective reality and shake hands in agreement. Neither could anyone else because so far, objectivity is in abeyance right now on many of these issues.

[Laertes]

I meant that to be an easy question. Surely you can think of any number of policies intended to advance a worthwhile cause that the government has no constitution and/or legal authority to pursue.

Just to name some easy ones:

Imagine that the justice department asks for a law requiring computer manufacturers to include back door access for government agents, and the legal authority to search anyone's PC at any time, entirely without oversight, on the whim of any agent who carries a badge.

Just to check for child pornography, death threats, or whatever.

This policy is intended to further a worthwhile goal: the eradication of pornography sucks. But they'd run afoul of the fourth amendment.

Suppose the congress passed a law banning the private ownership of handguns, as a crime reduction measure. Again, the policy is intended to further a worthwhile goal. Whether such a law would actually bring about its' ostensible goal is open to debate, but it's intended to do so, and so it passes test 1. Obviously, it fails entirely to pass test 2.

Governments seek power. Not because they're evil, or because the people in them are evil, but because they're governments. It is the nature of any bureaucracy to seek power. Every success justifies more power. Every failure indicates a need for more power. Old laws are never good enough--new ones are always required. Present any bureaucrat with any problem. His solution is more money and power for his bureau.

Governments sow fear because fearful people want someone to trust, trusting people yield power, and governments seek power. While some presidents are worse than others at permitting this, none is as good as a reasonable person would like. No point naming names.

We need more leaks. Lots of them. Governments should live in stark, quivering terror that any retarded scheme they pull will be splashed over the front page of the New York Times the following week.

Mencken wrote that "The only way a reporter should look at a politician is down." The only way ANY citizen should look at a politician is down. Leak, leak, leak. Expose their stupid fearmongering, lying, wrongheaded bullshit.

Anyway, enough of my small-l libertarian ranting. Suffice to say that goverments must be accountable, they're NEVER good at policing themselves, and they'll stamp TOP SECRET on a goddamn kleenex. The only government I like is one that leaks like a wicker basket. Secrecy is inimical to democracy.

[Phoenix]

"I meant that to be an easy question. Surely you can think..."

Laertes,

That is an insulting opening. With it, you set the temper for your rant and for my instant awareness that there is nothing in your diatribe that isn't rife with generalizations. Therefore, initial insult to me and a foaming generalization about rotten government power.....oh, and a nice quotation from the world's most miserable cynic, and you have lost any debate we might have.

You could lose the attitude and enjoy yourself a little more. By the way: Would you write the exact same comment and substitute the word 'religion' for 'government'?

[Laertes]

Can't say I'm interested in your opinions about my attitude.

I'm shocked that you can't imagine ANY well-intentioned application of government power that shouldn't be undertaken. This is an extreme brand of statism. I can only hope there aren't many like you. I expect there are.