Or she was .. she wasn't ... she was?
But... but... if Ms. McCarthy was *not* a source for Dana Priest, then there is no compact, yes? Why can't Ms. Priest simply say, "Although I will never discuss my sources, I will occasionally discuss my non-sources; in this case, Mary McCarthy was not a source to me in my Pulitzer Prize winning secret prison reporting."
Priest, or any other journalist would probably never do that. I imagine the legal maneuvering around this has the potential to become fairly intense. Priest likely won't and shouldn't say anything at all. No need to open the door at this point.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano re-affirmed on Monday that an agency official had been fired after acknowledging “unauthorized contacts with the media and discussion of classified information” with journalists.
Discussion is a two-way street. The implication might well be that Priest had the information prior to contact with McCarthy.
Then there's this:
The official said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year disclosing secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe. The law enforcement official spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the matter.
So, let's go back to the start:
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
Hmm ..: It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions. (bold mine)
The other day two Senate aides said McCarthy never came to the Intelligence Committee. But then, she didn't have too. Someone there likely already knew. Has Rockefeller struck, again?
The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country. (bold mine)
It would seem as though Priest possibly saw those documents, including Congressional documents. The Intel Committee might be a logical reservoir for documents from those disparate sources.
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. (Bold mine)
Who in Congress was asking for hearings?
the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.
To jump back to McCarthy, she might have simply contributed an opinion like the above after Priest approached her given the CIA statement of a discussion. And the following statement would fit McCarthy. The CIA even stated she didn't know the locations at a link above.
"We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy," said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. "Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, 'What are we going to do with them afterwards?' "
The above can't be McCarthy - she was still active in November. Are you starting to get a picture of our Intel structure leaking like a sieve?
It's looking that way to me.
Comments