Fitz!

Impeach the Decider!

Too bad they hadn’t read FDL (esp Mary & LHP) before they went on the air. It would have made a much clearer point to say that the government cannot classify things to cover illegality and ask for Bush to come clean about the black sites.

Anyone out there know the details of whistleblower litigation?

I’m trying to get my head around this:

If you leak classified, secret info, you are a criminal and should go to jail. OK.

But if you leak secret information about an illegal operation (rendition, tortute, etc.) it’s obviously secret but since the leak is about an illegal activity, are you criminally liable for leaking?

Aren’t you a criminal if you know this is going on and you DO NOTHING?

Of course when government does illegal shit they are going to make it a crime to leak about it, otherwise, they go to jail. Any criminal conspiracy has secrecy at its core.

Anyone able to answer this one? Are you a criminal if you leak secrets about an illegal operation?

Not one story in today’s paper about the Drumheller story, but there was one about the McCarthy story which, surprisingly enough, made reference to the hypocrisy angle.

Hi, Taylor, and thanks for all the great posts you’ve been doing here. I think you meant to say “that’s not okay” at the end of your first sentence.

More like AMERICA! We must take our country back from this Clan-in-Charge. Knowing that no election under this regime is guranteed credible, how does a voting person put faith in the “system”. In the past Diebold has guranteed the results the Republicans will want. I just would like to know that basic question: Will my vote count?

And, unless I’m mising something, the rendition flights were against both Domestic and Intl. law.

She had the guts to tell on the Gov’t breaking the law.

It’s not like she told secrets to benefit the enemy. She was a whistleblower, and deserves to be protected as such. Otherwise, the practise of classifying illegal activities to prevent discussion and exposure will intensify.

That’s the opposite of what AMerica needs now, and I think most would agree.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

^^^ Write a short letter (save it) and send a copy to your both your Senators and House Rep. This is excellent software. Plug in your zip code, hit everybody with a fax, email, or hard copy letter.

http://tinyurl.com/a6erq

Taylor, thanks for a great post and the graphic. It’s my new desktop background.
Is this one from Propaganda Remix?

The Reeps I talk to are now huddling and saying, “But Clinton did it tooo” and they remind me of 3-year-olds. “But, but, Elian Gonzales!” That’s their cry now, to make it seem as if this new authoritarianism isn’t new at all. BS.

Let’s also not forget the double standard hypocrisy demonstrated by Clusterfuck when he said he’d, “jawbone OPEC to lower the price” of oil back in campaign 2000.

Now all he wants to do is rub his jawbone on parts of Lee Raymond and Halliburton where the sun don’t shine.

tom chicago, Mary, creditors rights attorney, had some strong opinions about this over the weekend. IIRC she cited contracts law and loosehead prop agreed with her. A contract about anything illegal is not a contract. According to her, Mary McCarthy did nothing wrong in exposing illegal practices.

John Casper, I saved some of Mary’s comments on legal points to my email so I can ’splain some things to these GOP people I know.
(Thank you Mary!)

TR, New York Times had something a few days earlier about it, see link below. CNN is also picking it up.

Prewar Intelligence Ignored, Former C.I.A. Official Says
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: April 22, 2006
I share your concern. I hope the corporate media really jumps on it, as it seems so relevant to all aspects of the CIA leak investigation.
Taylor, thanks for writing about this.

Taylor, great post.
To echo 12 John Casper, IIRC the conceptfrom law school, a contract that requires illegal action is known as an ultra vires contract, which is unenforceable, as enforcement would be against public policy.

UMass Journalism Prof quoted in from a link at Froomkin today:

…”"Since the beginning of his presidency, Mr. Bush has made it clear that he does not buy the industry’s widely held conceit that it serves as a proxy for the American people. That, he has suggested over the course of his two terms, is his job.

“The national press seems to be saying otherwise.”

—–

btw – I agree about the graphic up top. Excellent. Amazingly, I’m seeing more and more direct statements around the Web that previously would have been dismissed as violations of ‘Godwin’s Law’. Makes me think that one is becoming ‘quaint’.

It was probably a mistake to give someone a personal stake in demonstrating that the government’s conduct was illegal–especially someone from the Inspectorate General, which is basically where the bodies are buried…

Firing Ms. McCarthy was a public execution designed to intimidate. Now everyone who has a security clearance knows that even if they saw something illegal, they’ll lose their clearance and job. After many years of legal travails, they might get back pay, but how many are willing to go through that?

It’s not only aimed at CIA, but anyone with a clearance. Ought to keep the eggheads at Los Alamos quiet while the Iran lies keep coming…

It’s worth pointing out that we don’t know what happened. Maybe she went through channels, maybe she didn’t. Maybe she had a legal opinion that her conduct was legal, maybe she didn’t. The appropriateness of her conduct depends a lot on the details.

But she sounds like a pretty typical bureaucrat. Such people rarely take such chances while they have options, or for minor peccadillos.

tooling around the dial this a.m., i caught a couple of minutes of limbaugh blaming a coordinated campaign by clinton — who travelled the country durin gthe 2004 campaign (apparently holding secret meetings plotting).

JC#14: Thanks. San Antonio is currently in the throes of that ten day party known as “Fiesta” and the Spurs are in the playoffs so it’s as though the rest of the world has ceased to exist.

Margot – I don’t know who’s the originator of the graphic. I will check Propaganda Remix to see and if it is credit them. They’re amazing.

Leslie in CA – You’re right, it’s fixed and thanks.

Thanks to everyone for the amazing 11 days I’ve had. I can’t tell you how much fun it’s been for me and how much I learned. I hope you stop by my blog digs and say hello from time to time. It would be an honor to see some FDL readers over there from time to time, as well as those of you who enjoy podcasts.

Where did you get that graphic?!

[I just posted this on the previous thread, but it’s relevant here. It was posted in response to comments by Jane H. and angie.]

Mary made a good point about all this yesterday that I find very frustrating – the information McCarthy leaked was classified illegally in the first place. Section 1.7 of Executive Order 13292, which defines how classification is supposed to be done, states that it is illegal to classify information to cover up illegal activity. By that standard, what McCarthy did was reveal information that should not have been classified in the first place.

It also seems possible, thanks to the Nuremberg trials, that it was her legal obligation to report this if the normal channels for dealing with such malfeasance weren’t going to work. According to the Larry Johnson article, McCarthy most likely learned about this situation while working at the CIA’s Inspector General’s office. The IG is the place you go in a government agency when your bosses are breaking the law, but the IG reports to the head of the agency. If the head of the agency is the one doing the illegal activity, then it’s pretty clear that’s not going to work. I emphasize that, in all likelihood, McCarthy learned of this while working at the IG’s office. What this implies is that McCarthy knew the investigation into the black prison network was going nowhere.

There are certainly suppositions in that last paragraph, but I think they’re reasonable ones. If they are correct, then McCarthy should be praised for doing the right thing, and the government officials who are now calling her a traitor are the ones who should be in trouble.

Ok, and good afternoon, now…a question. How are/were these secret prisons illegal? That’s the only possible fly in the ointment here. Gitmo is “legal”…but known. Gitmo is a prison holding “foreign combatants”…and so do the secret prisons? One’s secret, one’s not….other than a secrecy issue….what’s the difference?
Torture: people got tortured at Gitmo, and the WH issued that CRAZY position paper saying it’s ok….so, it hasn’t yet been ruled illegal? And, if torture went on at a “secret prison”, isn’t it covered by that same crazy position paper?
In summary….what made/makes these secret prisons “illegal”? Now, I think they are boneheaded…but how are they illegal?
Ghostman

John Kerry has been proven right about so many things since the 2004 election, that if the election were held today he’d win in a walk.

I can’t help thinking ol’ mush-mouth would find a way to screw it up again.

Oops…Margot beat me to it.

I think this is getting to the point where it’a almost a full-time job to keep up with the criminal activity of this administration. I’d like to think that’s the reason the people who should be prepared with facts are still behind the curve on this thing. I mentioned yesterday that I had not heard one of the talking heads, or one of the Democrats, speak to the issue of whether or not the government can classify activity that is illegal. Another Sunday morning, yelling at the TV.

Go back and read Dana Priest’s article on the black sites – she does a pretty good job of raising that issue, and yet, after her article was published, the entire focus was on bringing the traitorous leakers to justice and issuing subpoenas to journalists who passed on the leaks to the public.

We’ve gone beyond hypocritical – way beyond. Glenn Greenwald raised a number of instances of Republicans (Shelby and Hatch) disclosing classified information, and not only was there no call for their heads to roll, there wasn’t even an eyebrow raised by the GOP.

The people make my head hurt.

Taylor, thanks for the wealth of information and opinion you’ve given us. You’ve done an amazing job. You will definitely see us at your place.

Has the Bush Administration made another major blunder by having McAarthy fired? Like all former employees of the US Government, she would now be free to write a book, do an interview, etc., etc. We probably will see her on 60 minutes before the year is over.

EPU’d too:

Cujo359– yep, that’s what McGovern says too:

>>>>>>
But couldn’t McCarthy appeal to “independent†Inspector General Helgersen? As statutory IG, Helgersen does enjoy some unique prerogatives and autonomy, should he choose to exercise them. Those familiar with his longstanding penchant for sniffing the breezes from the White House and director’s office and trimming his sails accordingly would be shocked to see him actually exercise those prerogatives. Rather, he has obediently acquiesced in denying Congress the particulars of his investigations—the one on the performance of CIA officers before 9/11, for example, which reportedly heaped criticism on Medal of Freedom awardee Tenet and other senior agency officials. And according to today’s New York Times, “independent watchdog†Helgersen recently let himself be talked into submitting to a polygraph exam by those he is supposed to be “watch-dogging.†Remarkable.

It seems likely that Mary McCarthy quickly saw the lay of the land and decided the Helgersen-Goss route held no promise for success in addressing the abuses of torture and rendition. Had she any doubts on that score, they were presumably dispelled as she watched Director Goss trot off with Cheney to the office of Sen. John McCain to plead for an exception for the CIA from his draft amendment banning torture. This particular mission was not accomplished, but the president appended a “signing statement†saying, in effect, that he feels free to disregard the McCain amendment banning torture.

OT: For reasons too lengthy to go into here, the spouse and I had wondered how retired Gen. Shalikashvili(known as “Gen. Shali”) felt about the other generals speaking out.

After reading this story: http://www.thenewstribune.com/…..6290c.html , now I know.

I’m also pleased to see that Gen. Shali is recovering from his stroke.

Prof Foland, thanks for reminding us about all we don’t know. Wasn’t it just last week that we were reading about how some at the CIA were hiring lawyers because they believed that some of what they were doing wasn’t legal? Sorry, I don’t remember where I read that….

ghostman, 23:”Ok, and good afternoon, now…a question. How are/were these secret prisons illegal?”

The secret prisons may not be illegal per se, but I think the illegality comes from the fact that the people in them have no access to habeas corpus, which is (so far but maybe not much longer) guaranteed by the Constitution (4th Amendment?).

No lawyer here, so confirmation by a legal eagle appreciated.

Professor Foland @ 11:07 am (#17) – This is why it’s imperative that the people who made these decisions are made to stand trial for this. They should spend the rest of their lives in jail. What Bush, Cheney, Goss, and the others who have enabled this have done is broken the implicit contract for classifying data in the first place, and then made someone suffer for making that fact known.

The implicit contract about classification is this: any who holds a clearance and is entrusted with classified information is legally (and ethically) bound to protect it. Violating that trust will get you fired and possibly imprisoned. That is the obligation for those entrusted with that information. It is incumbent on those who classify the information to do it properly – to follow all the guidance concerning how to mark the information, what to classify, and when and how to declassify it. In short, they are not allowed to classify improperly. That is their obligation. As far as I’m concerned, willful violation of either part of that “contract” should yield the same consequences.

If you can’t whistleblow about something illegal, then what is the point of whistleblower protection in the first place? I know the CIA does all kinds of crazy shit, but do they actually sign on the dotted line to trash the constitution? With all these people breaking their respective codes of silence, you’d think there might be some suspicion from the Congress…..but I guess they have their own code, don’t they?

Taylor,
You have done a wondeful job here on FDL. Thanks for your excellent postings of information, analysis, and opinion. I’ll catch you at your blog from now on.

Is there a democratic/progressive group of lawyers similiar to the group that harassed Clinton during his presidency?

Seems an awful lot of legal wrangling should be going on right now, with lots of avenues for potential claims, yet it seems only the aclu is involved.

Am I unaware of others?

TR @ 11:20 am (#30) – Some of my former coworkers and I knew Gen. Shali from his days as the 9ID commander on Ft. Lewis. Good man, and a smart one. He figured out how the high-tech Army was going to work and rode that knowledge to the JCS.

Sorry to hear he had a stroke.

Attack on whistleblowers and making them the focus of the 24/7 spin is the same old Faux trick of “Look at the shiny object in my hand” while I rob you blind trick.

It isn’t the leaking that should be the focus, it is the idea that AMERICA has secret prisons and rendition and torture and GOD Knows what else.

Every government employee knows their fate anyway but this just reinforces it. My father worked for the US Forest Service for 24 years, retiring 1985. I remember stories he told of things that went on and he tended to be outspoken about issues at work. He was given an offer to retire or be transfered to some outpost in the boondocks. He has great admiration for Anita Hill’s testemoney just because he knew what courage it took to speak out.

That is why we and our Democratic officals NEED to protect whistleblowers from every government agency. They are our ONLY oversight right now and shine the bright lights on where those cockroaches are hiding.

OT– but I know there are FDL’ers who respect Prof. Cole– John Fund attacks him today wrt to his offer from Yale. I already wrote to the opinion page, not banking on getting it published, though ;). You guessed it the Fund supporters outweigh the Cole supporters! Suprise!!! Check it out and Juan links to the piece of trash (imo) by Fund. He replies and it was published in the WSJ.

http://www.juancole.com/

Thanks, zendoman, I look forward to it.

The facts are indeed hard to miss. And miss them is what most of America does. I am thrilled that these leak stories continue to be revealed, seems like once a week (though last week we got the bonus Condi leak)–every story increases awareness. Because there is so much lying and hyperbole in politics, it takes America a good long while to grasp an obvious set of wrongs. They discount much of what they hear and read. But if enough leak stories come out, over enough time, the corruption of secrets and the CIA at the White House will become an assumed fact by most Americans.
Effective marketing is done by promoting the brand day after day, week after week, and the GOP is doing our work for us. Nice of them, huh?

Georgia10 over at DK has a nice roundup of the New Hampshire phone-jamming corruption scandal, and how the scandal may –via legal process– end up in the White House. Same thing: drip, drip, drip, each story of GOP corruption eventually brands them as the party of corruption in the minds of the majority of Americans. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/24/104559/889

Also interesting over at Kos is that Illinois and California have introduced bills in the state legislature that call for impeachment. Of course while the law demands the House take up these state-passed resolutions, the Republican leadership can bury them in committee or some such. BUT the drip-drip-drip real-time marketing program goes on–a little coverage here, a little coverage there, and America, ever so slowly, gets it.

Gosh it’s going to be an interesting year.

TR # 30

“I’m also pleased to see that Gen. Shali is recovering from his stroke.”

me too – thanks for the link !

Re Libby:
“Secret declassification” has got to be one of the greatest oxymorons ever devised: “This report can be talked about – but don’t tell anyone that it’s not secret anymore!”

IANAL, but I’ve done my stint as a juror, and even twelve ordinary folks from a variety of political, educational, racial, and socio-economic backgrounds could see the stupidity at work here.

32, orangejumpsuit…..see, the problem is that, for the longest while, the Gitmo prisoners had no habeas corpus rights either. I “think” some court said they must be given periodic hearings before a military panel?
I’m still stumped on how these secret prisons are “illegal”…but I agree, it would be nice to hear from a legal beagle on this!
Ghostman

orangejumpsuit @ 11:24 am (#??) – I think the upshot is that these folks were kidnapped from wherever they were and dragged off to another country without any due process, then tortured. It’s the due process and (lack of) humane treatment that, IMHO, separates “kidnapping” from “taking into custody”. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, either.

Impeach Bush
Vote Democrat!

The decision is yours…not his.

Thanks Taylor, I will certainly be visiting your home spot.

The Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and any secret prisons outside US territory, are illegal under international law. The Geneva Convention is a treaty which the United States has signed; under the Constitution, treaties have the same force as laws passed by Congress.

Fund actually shortened his name from Fundament.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundament

-GSD

OT:

Feingold’s seemingly deliberate use of ‘fox-hole Dems’ could mean : “FOX-hole Dems” if you look at it the right way.

major props to Taylor!

This comment is with regards to the previous thread of April 23 “Late Nite FDL†and the unwarranted attack on ‘chicago tom’ for his suggestion that the WTC towers were felled by controlled demolition charges on 9/11.

I got to say, I was surprised and disappointed by the intolerant and vitriolic reaction of some of the commentators to this suggestion.
To all those who attacked him and this idea, I am sure you have seen the news footage of the collapse of Building 7, here (select the high resolution link in slow motion) and are comfortable with the notion that fire and only fire, according to FEMA brought down this building. And of course you saw the explosive squibs coming out the right side of Building 7 and do not question for a moment that these explosions were explosive charges consistent with classical controlled demolitions.

And you have seen pictures of the 757 crash into the Pentagon including the notorious Pentagon Strike video and have rightly discounted it because of it’s inherent propaganda value (there is so much of it around today after all, that al Qaeda is tricky…I mean look at what they can do from a cave in Afghanistan)…and despite the lack of passenger seats, passengers, wing and other airline debris, not to mention the clean holes punched clear through outer and inner walls of 3 of the Pentagon’s rings, you rightly sided with the government’s explanation because, God knows they would not lie. That would be a conspiracy after all.

The comment attacks were numerous and sadly, not consistent with open discussion and intellectual debate.
I’m sure I will be attacked for pointing out some of the most egregious comments but here goes:

ck says:
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:47 pm seriously unproductive tinfoil territory. and Now — did something weird happen with WTC 7? Maybe; maybe not. : Maybe not? ck, gotta say-d i s a p p o i n t e d…I thought you were more open-minded. Go ahead, look at that video. Do you really believe fire brought down Building 7?
At this point I should point out that WTC 7 came down at around 3:00 in the afternoon, so if you are thinking the Fire Department or some other authority wired the building with charges in a controlled response to neutralising the fire or an imminent collapse, no. They did not have enough time. So if WTC7 was a controlled demolition why not WTC1 and WTC2?
Also, there have only been 3 buildings in history that have collapsed because of fire and they were those 3 buildings on 9/11, although numerous skyscrapers have had fires burn for days with no structural collapse. Even if you buy the story of ‘debris cascade’ of floors pan-caking as per the government’s theory of structural failure, the central support columns should have remained.

Not surprisingly Ego Parallel Universe weighed in with the comment (#130 same thread): Chicago Tom is a thread hijacking troll. Now that’s a productive debate position… Personally, I prefer “Burn the Witchâ€.
The irony is the people who are the most resistant to these possibilities cite ‘Conspiracy Theories’ but comfort themselves in the explanations of the profoundly compromised 9/11 Commission and their dissection of Bin Laden and the al Qaeda conspiracy.

Conspiracies do exist but do not immediately start as some type of ‘star-chamber’ structured plot (PNAC notwithstanding). Conspiracies are not plotted so much as they are a natural community of ‘like-mindedness’ and sadly that thread demonstrated a conspiracy of intolerance fuelled and comforted by self-absorbed egotistical delusional groupthink. It was as if the idea of “What if?†was replaced by What id!

Noen (#147-same thread) said:
Cheney is a full-blown sociopath. I truly believe that.
I have to agree with that assessment. An assessment that takes on significant importance and concern when you realise that this is the same Cheney who took operative control of FEMA in June of 2001 and on the morning of 9/11 was the maestro overseeing and conducting an anti-terrorist hijacking drill.
Don’t believe me? Good. Do your own research. (You will find though, that these facts are true.)

If you want to research this topic, I recommend starting with Mike Ruppert’s excellent book ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ or Scholars for 911 Truth. Look at their credentials, their questions and the facts. You question and you decide.

But I’m sure all the 9/11 naysayers of the thread in question have already looked at these questions…Haven’t they…or do they just have the answers?
~

GSD– I think you’ve got it! heh. Wonder about his lineage? Is he one of the entitled?

The Leaker in Chief can declassify at will, for political purposes, using national security for his own presidential aims,

You left out “retroactively, after having been caught leaking.” If he really had declassified the NIE sections and Plame’s status, then when Scottie asked Rove and Libby whether they had talked to reporters about this, they would have said “Sure. It’s no longer classified.” It’s not declassified if the only people with access to the material are people with security clearances.

jayackaroyd 53

nail meet hammer. yes. absolutely.

MAJOR props to Taylor. That was a really difficult job to step into and she did it beautifully. Many, many thanks.

John Caspar #12
and anyone wanting the link to Mary’s and Looseheadprop’s terrific explanations regarding legal classification and employment contracts, go to this link, then “control F” and look for their names.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..s-whacked/ Also see, Glenn Greenwald’s posts over the weekend, and this one, which he links to at the end of one of them: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot…..itics.html

jayackroyd @ 11:52 am (#53) – It’s not declassified if the only people with access to the material are people with security clearances.

Have to disagree here. There are plenty of documents that are not classified and yet have only a limited distribution. Bush abused the system by not making it freely available, with or without the necessary redactions, but leaking it to reporters. While it’s not as serious as the offense of leaking classified material, or illegally classifying information to cover up a crime or prevent embarassment, it is an abuse of power nontheless.

Hampshire phone-jamming corruption scandal, and how the scandal may –via legal process– end up in the White House.

one of the benefits of highlighting this case with its successful prosecutions and links to the white house will be that it’s no longer the province of conspiracy buffs that the 2000 election was stolen. it will be well documented that the national leadership of the republican party had a strategy to disrupt and prevent voters from voting. although what really happened in 2000 will never be satisfactorily resolved for those who don’t already understand, it will stick in the back of people’s minds and with the endless stream of stories of gop corruption, should end republican domination for a couple of decades. (if we live thru this one)

Thanks for the many posts and also your frequent interaction, Taylor. It was always thought provoking!

Re: Mary McCarthy

It looks to me like the CIA is claiming two separate reasons for Mary’s termination

1) Leaking classified information
2) Unauthorized contact with the media

“Agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano confirmed that an officer had been fired for having unauthorized contacts with the media AND disclosing classified information to reporters, including details of intelligence operations.”

http://www.heraldsun.news.com……63,00.html

John Kerry came out in favor of the war when it mattered. He had his 15 minutes.

Taylor, I have really enjoyed reading your posts, and the constructive and informative way you interact in the comments. You’re on my Bookmarks toolbar now. The graphics have been stellar, as well.

The Kerry quote breaks my heart. He is so right about what is wrong here. If only he could have learned to speak in such a clear, devastating way before 2004, instead of the long, erudite but unfinished sentences. He sounded like the lawyer and Senator that he is, instead of the tough warrior and warm human being that I think he also is, underneath all that verbal insulation.

#23 – Ghostman,

These detention facilities are illegal under the Geneva Conventions because the detainees have been treated inhumanely there. There are several statutes in the Conventions covering this particular situation (”extroadinary rendition”) but, Article 12 begins to address it:

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

There is some question as to whether or not these are actually “Prisoners of War” (which has been argued IRT Gitmo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib also) but I tend to believe that that is just semantics. Bottom line is that, under the Geneva Conventions, you are responsible for ensuring the treatment of your prisoners (even if you hand them over to someone else). I believe there is also a section somewhere in the Conventions (although I am unable to find it at the moment) which speaks to the issue of access by humanitarian organizations (Intl. Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc) also.

Regardless, after reading Larry Johnson’s take on the situation, Mrs. McCarthy sounds like she wasn’t exactly lots of fun to work with but she should be lauded for taking this brave stand to get the truth to the American people. She is, clearly, a whistleblower and should be guaranteed all the protection that goes along with that position.

As usaul most of you do not get this what the President did was declassified the information and then let it be pubilshed. Once the information is declassifed then everyone has access to the information.

What Mary did is break the law sicne the information was still classified you have to make sure the person or persons recieving the information has the clearence and the need to know. Mary just like all who work with classified information sign a non disclosure statement. That staement say in a nut shell that if you knowenly give information to a unaothoorized person you a subject to a 10,000 dollar fine or 20 years in preson or both. Clearly what Mary did was wrong and she lucky she did not go to jail. ONe just has to look at the Walker case which he sold US codes to the USSR and undermended or national security, this group went to jail so maybe Mary should what do you say about that

Speaking of leaks- anybody hear any news about the GJ meeting on Friday? Was there ever any confirmation of the Note’s report? I didn’t hear a word about it- but I’m thinking that a Karl Rove indictment might throw a little monkey wrench into Bolton’s five point plan to save his boss’ ass from impeachment when the Dems take over Congress in November.

Steve-
I say you should proof-read.

Peterr and jayackaroyd, thanks for bringing that back to light– how can we keep that distinction in people’s faces? (Like if Bush had really declassified the NIE, why didn’t he jolly well send all those sections off to the RELEVANT CONGR. COMMITTEES pronto, who might have a wee bit of a prerogative to see it? more, perhaps, than the climbingest climber of the NYTimes?)

Sorry, I’ll calm down, anyway — it is hard to prioritize which issues to write my reps about (don’t endanger our troops by condoning torture, don’t endanger the whole effing planet by bombing Iran, don’t throw out the Constitution, don’t saddle us with even more debt…), but I want to keep your point (#53) bouncing around, crucial meme that it is…

#66 LMAO

Glad Jane Harman has finally got around to condemning the republican death and torture machine. Too bad it took her so long…I guess those contributions from Lockheed and other death weapons makers, AIPAC and other extremist lobbying groups, fogged her vision in the past.

Now the question is: Will she do anything about it?

It’s easy to cry murder once the monster is eating your baby…where was this outrage before, when the killers were smiling and shaking hands with our reps. Are all Democrats progressive?

Okay I see what so funny but do you get the point or not. I was in the Navy for 22 years I could tell my family everthing that went on but CNN and Fox news could see that double standard. Beside I am no english major are you.

Steve @ 66
“Clearly what Mary did was wrong and she lucky she did not go to jail.”

Greenwald today:

“The ever dwindling group of Bush followers has become a highly emotional group, having far more to do with psychological and emotional needs than political beliefs. Anger, hatred, rage and a desire for punishment are what fuels them, and they recognize no limits on what ought to be done to satisfy those cravings.”

Ok, many of you cite international stuff….that’s probably the weakest argument. EXCEPT…the geneva convention DOES provide for red cross visits…and those have happened at Gitmo. But, that would make the process of the detention in violation of the geneva convention…what makes the detention itself illegal?
Ghostman

It is said that Republicans fear the Democrats’ taking over of one or both houses of Congress in this fall’s elections, not only because they will lose political power, but also because the Democrats could then use subpoena power to investigate the wrongdoings of this administration. I hope that occurs, of course, and if it does, classification and declassification of information, whistleblowing, and the rights (and duties) of government employees who have knowledge of official wrongdoing is one of the areas that a Democratic Congress should review.

And then there were eight:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…..h-general/

-GSD

OCSteve, what happened to the OC?
Losing it hasn’t helped your grasp of the facts. One of the larger errors in your comment imo, Libby didn’t leak the information in the “declassified,” NIE. If he had, we would have known then what we know now, Joe Wilson was right.
Steve, since you mentioned “what people don’t get,” have you checked the price of gasoline lately?

Ghostman, Have you read the 4th ammendment lately? How bout for a start That no criminal charges were filed? Acess to representation? Etc.

OK going to do my best to paraphrase Mary’s truly excellent comment from the other day.

1) People with jobs like Mary O.’s enter into agreements a sometimes called Executive Agreements) as a condition of employment In these agreements (agreement=contract) they agree:
a) not to divulge secrets;
b) to waive statutory whistleblower protections.

2) The statutes cited by Mary (our Mary) relating to the classification of information (sorry no links, no time, no competence with a computer) say that the president/government cannot legally classify information to:
a) cover up criminal activity
b) avoid their own embarrassment
c) other reasons not pertinent here

3) If the information could not be legally classified, it’s classification is “void ab initio” that means void from the beginning.

4) If Mary O. were charged criminally, she could plead the illegal classification as a defense. I think it would be a great defense upon the facts as we know them.

5) Upon a judge ruling that the classification was “void ab initio” all actions subsequent to the illegal void classification are seen in the light as if the classification never occurred.

6) At that point Mary O. would have to be adjudged not guilty of revealing classified information if the information was not properly classified in the first place.

PLEASE NOTE: until such time as a judge rules that the information was not properly classified, Mary O. remains at risk for prosecution. It is unlikely that such a ruling will happen absent such prosecution because judges do not issue advisory opinions. Alternatively, perhaps a news organization (maybe Ms. Priest) could bring a suit and obtain such a ruling.

Our Mary also had another section of her argument about the effect of Mary O.’s story being an outright lie. Let’s skip that since I think the lie is unlikely.

LMAO, Accidentally double posted, Slow down cowboy. Funny.

Phyllis at #28

Former employees still have to get their book drafts, their TV appearance comments even their testimony before Congress “approved” in advance. These people are being gagged.

Steve, if you were in the Navy for 22 years, what defense does our Navy have against supersonic ship killers, such as Russia’s “Sunburn?”
Rumsfeld is telling us he “modernized” the military. No body armor for our troops and no protection for aircraft carriers, do you of any evidence of Rummy’s “modernization”?

GSD # 74 -
Wow, thanks for the link – of course it’s great to see the Fox news graphic to go with it

Taylor Marsh, before you go allow me to include my thanks for your posts and comments here – already have you bookmarked, and who knows, maybe I’ll wind up with one of those Podcast thingies

Susan in Iowa @ 11:59 am (#56) – Thanks for finding that thread. It’s the one I was referring to in (#22). Mary and LHP seem to have covered all the relevant points.

So what does the price of gas have to do with anything.

#64 – Steve,

First of all, it is still a matter of contention whether or not the President declassified the NIE before ordering the information leaked to reporters. He has been less than forthright on that issue. This is not to mention the fact that he did not follow the time-honored protocol for the declassification of classified or sensitive material which would have entailed him informing the Director of the CIA (in the case at hand) that he was going to declassify the information. More importantly, if the President thought that the information was SO important that it deemed declassification, why did they leak it to a few select reporters (all of whom had carried water for them in the past) rather than presenting the documents to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees?

As to your other argument regarding the Walker case…your supposition is preposterous! There is NO possible correlation that can be drawn between leaking sensitive information to a foreign government for personal financial gain and leaking information to the press to expose something you feel is illegal and/or immoral. This distinction is precisely why we have a whistleblower statute! Whether or not you agree with how she went about doing what she did (& I’m quite certain that there’s a lot to the story we haven’t heard yet), she is almost a text-book definition of a whistleblower and she should be protected as such.

Steve #70

You made it through 22 years in the Navy? As what Dumbass First Class?

Good god, you’re embarrasing the name…

Proofread, PLEASE!!!

76…I think the 4th amendment deals with search and seizure of property?
77: ok, thanks. I see her (Mary) point, and it’s well constructed. But the initial premise is that something is, in fact, illegal. (2a in your comment). It’s this threshhold question which puzzles me.
Ghostman

Hail, Mary(s).

ghostman, I have to run, so I’ll catch you on another thread, but Bush’s policies are creating more “terrorists,” than we are “killing.”
There’s no “Declaration of War.”
If we’re “in the right,” where is the transparency? If “we’re in the right,” what do we have to fear from transparency?”
What right or recourse do we have if someone does this to a U.S. citizen?
It’s a complete violation of every principle that this nation stands for.
Our best defense against terrorism is a free and open society where people trust us to act ethically. Bush/Cheney are exporting terrorism and it will come back on us.

John the defencse for are Aircraft Carriers is an Aegis Cuirser that can kill a missle going fast. As for the body armor I can agree with you on that it is a shame to send men and women off to war with not the right equipment of course that has never happen before right.

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] – ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

Please note the very last sentence.

88: oh, I agree with everything you say. This European detention policy is/was boneheaded. On policy grounds, I think you’re right on target!
Ghostman

I believe the quandary for Mrs. McCarthy at this point is simply that she did not use or follow the ‘whistleblower’ protocol. There is a set way to do what she did within the agency. Now, she may have perfectly good reasons for thinking that particular procedure would not work in this case, for all the reasons Taylor and others have quoted. But it doesn’t change the fact that the whistleblower procedure is the ONE and Only One legally safe way to raise an objection or to initiate an investigation into alleged lawbreaking. The reasons for this are justified given McCarthy’s place of employment. So as far as that aspect of the case is concerned, she made a mistake.

It gets much trickier when the whistleblowing activity is about an illegal activity occuring on foreign land. All of this debate of course assumes rendition for purposes of torture is illegal. Given the fact that most of these cases involved picking up people in foreign countries before spiriting them away, to another different foreign country, the question becomes broader: Even if it is legal in America under some secret executive order; since all activity occurred in and on foriegn jurisdiction, was it illegal THERE?

The answer to this question, at least for the Western European captives, is definately yes. Not just the kidnapping, torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, lack of habeus corpus protections, etc… but also as a matter of treaty obligations. Another question, if the U.S. activity in this regard violates treaties held with the country we picked the person up in, does this treaty violation trump the secret executive order authorizing it, so that the executive order itself is null and void? It is well beyond my legal knowledge to give an opinion, but these questions need answered.

Foriegners and non- u.s. citizens generally have no protections whatsoever under the U.S. Constitution. So the renditioned person’s beef isn’t with the violation of their 4th amendment (or whatever amendment)constitutional rights. Its the violation of their rights as citizens of their own country. Think of the Italien example where arrests warrants were sent out for like 16 CIA personnel who kidnapped some poor guy off the street. They (the agents) are being sought for violating Italien/EU law. There is no legal defense to this activity in Italy by saying, “The U.S. Government okay’d it.” This activity isn’t occuring on U.S. soil, so it really doesn’t matter whether U.S. law did or didn’t authorize the activity in question. Assuming all host countries ban torture and kidnapping; the answer to the question is yes, its patently illegal.

Unfortunately, McCarthy’s leak to the press was also illegal. Which brings up whether she will be charged, since a trial could expose loads of juicy illegal activity authorized by the highest levels of our government. Maybe McCarthy knew they would at most fire her, since a trial would be too risky. Who knows. One thing is certain, she has the moral highground here.

green917,

“This distinction is precisely why we have a whistleblower statute!”

??? I’m not aware of any “whistleblower statute” that applies to federal employees.

90: ok, but the us constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign lands. Sorry.
Ghostman

Ghostman, check out this article via FindLaw:
>>>>>>>

In conclusion, the CIA Gulag of detention camps spread around the globe violates numerous provisions of both domestic and international law. And the legal liability for these camps falls not just on CIA operatives, but on those Administration officials who have authorized or sanctioned these practices.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/c…..ergen.html

Ghostman at 86
The 4th Ammendment also includes Due Process protections.

As to why the secret prisons are illegal, this is an either/or issue.

Either these prisoners are prisoners of war and are entitled to a lot more than just Red Cross visits. They are entitled to have their whereabouts communicated to their home country, they are entitled to recieves mail and packages from family, they are entitled to have their internal military units preserved and to exert their own internal military discipline. They have lots of rights. Under law. US law.

If they are not prisoners of war. They are simply victims of kidnapping. Plain old, Lindburg baby, mafia hit coming soon type kidnapping. Everbody knows that’s a crime. Under US law.

No matter how you look at it, it’s a crime.

I will be interested to hear the chain of events that led to McCarthy speaking to the press. Did she raise her concerns internally? Did she go to the IG? If she got nowhere within her organization, would she next have had to go to the appropriate Congressional committee? Are we sure that there were not members of the House and/or Senate who were aware of these prisons or these practices? Is there any reason to think that the anger over the leaks wasn’t so much about the leaking, but about revealing who already knew about this stuff, and when they knew?

94 Ghostman

The crimes are not being committed by foreign nationals in foreign lands. They are being committed by members of the US government, some sitting on their keisters in DC, some playing deadly commando games all over the globe.

92: now THERE is a good explanation! Ok, I’m leaning more towards the idea that this stuff was, in fact, illegal. It probably violated the laws of SOME country.
Ghostman

Steve @ 12:08 pm (# ) – Clearly what Mary did was wrong and she lucky she did not go to jail.

Saying something does not make it so.

ONe just has to look at the Walker case which he sold US codes to the USSR and undermended or national security, this group went to jail so maybe Mary should what do you say about that.[sic]

This is a deliberate conflation of entirely different circumstances. The Walkers sold code schedules to the Soviets for money. They were not revealing an illegal activity that was illegally classified by, in all likelihood, the very people who you have implied elsewhere should be entrusted with investigating that action.

Would you let foxes guard your chicken house?

I had to work within this classification system as long as you claim to have. I can tell you that nothing about the last five years of these feckless little bastards running our country into the ground is more disgusting to me than these abuses and outright violations of the classification system. This is a bond of trust with both the employees of the security agencies they run and with the American people. This is something for which the people apologizing for their behavior should be profoundly and perpetually ashamed. That they aren’t is just one more reason to think that the level of stupidity in this country has reached intolerable levels.

I to think the policies of have detention centers oversea run by the CIA was stupid if the country wanted to help us they should run the centers themselves. You are right we do not know if the information that the Libby leaked was declassified before and we will never know, but clearly the information was classified that Mary leaked.

First of all; don’t jump on Ghostman. If we can’t answer his (our) questions, we’re not in the game.

Here’s a thought I had while watching the most excellent Drumheller piece. It’s not a deep thought but I’d be interested in feedback.

Being 53, it dawned on me that 60 Minutes is an “old folks” show. I had visions of barca-loungers and mac and cheese on a TV tray.

There are a LOT of wingnut youngsters that didn’t see that piece but will hear and read the “noise machine” version.

These are the people that really need their eyes opened IMO.

Discuss

“And then there were eight:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…..h-general/

-GSD”

It is encouraging to see that the Swiftboating of the seven courageous generals has not deterred another one from joining in their call for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

92 AND 95,96: now, I’m really letting go of my earlier reservations on this. A good explanation in these three comments. Thank you!
Ghostman

Anne is right on track Mary could have used internal procedures to handle this if she did not to bad for her. If she was stoped she always could have gone to THe congress and the senate as is the right of any American

windy_city_atty @ 12:35 pm (#92) – The problem with your logic is that McCarthy was part of that “legal procedure” at the time. She worked in the Inspector General’s office. And, if you had read the thread Susan in iowa had pointed to, you’d know that the IG can stop any investigation for whatever reason, and the CIA’s IG was someone inclined to go with the political flow.

You don’t need to be an attorney to figure out how well working within the system was going to go in this case.

Re neurophius @ 73:

Josh Marshall had a killer suggestion in a post yesterday, IIRC, for a slogan that should the tagline for any non-Republican running for Congress or the Senate: “We can’t afford two more years of Bush and Cheney with no Congressional oversight.” This statement ought to be the centerpiece of a nationwide billboard campaign with “Vote Joe Blow (or Jane Doe) for Whatever office” below it.

GSD, thanks for the info on the numero 8, a Marine general. I guess the line is forming to the left!

one citizen’s fantasy:

the whole crew is ‘renditioned’ and asked about the lies that have gotten us so far down the ‘Road To Perdition’ which we are careening down in a vehicle with no brakes.

#93 – Cozumel

OSHA Whistleblower Protection Provisions

a list of federal whistleblower statutes from law.enotes.com

You may be correct in the context of intelligence employees though as I couldn’t find any directly pertaining to that area. One could probably argue, however, that her disclosure was done to prevent fraud, waste or abuse.

Tim:

I think the hope is that the “young people” (oh I feel old typing that!!) will learn about these issues through various avenues on the web, through shows like Jon Stewart’s and other media sites they favor. FDL commenters seem to cover a wide range of ages, from college-aged to retirees. Other blogs appeal to younger readers, etc. But, these media are more likely to address some of these issues than the MSM we grew up on.

TR (5), even if the Spurs and Fiesta were not engaging the locals 24/7, the (only) paper would not run the Drumheller story unless they could doctor it to show Drumheller in a bad light. As for the paper mentioning hypocrisy in the McCarthy story, that is a surprise. The editor must have missed it.
Professor Foland (17), I agree we need more details on the McCarthy story which has people running in different directions about what they are guessing happened. It’s doubtful Dr. McCarthy can speak for herself at this point and, until she can, we should not speak for her. There are too many holes in what’s being reported to believe any of it except that the CIA fired her. “Why” is the big question that has not been answered by Dr. McCarthy and which will be ever so interesting if she does answer it.

Oops, that’s Martha responding to Tim, not Tim responding to himself. More coffee please.

I have no idea if Mary broke the law or not. I don’t see any indictments- so I’m guessing that she did not. At any rate- she was a brave american- bringing the secret, brutal, and illegal activities of our government to public view. She deserves our utmost respect and thanks.

Sometimes people take risks for the sake of freedom- and that’s what she did.

Thank You Mary. I hope that the rest of us would act with as much courage.

92 and 97

Mary McCArthy was WORKING IN THE IG’s OFFICE!!!!

She is the one on the recieving end of the whistleblowing complaint! Focus.

There was no place for her to go legally except Porter Goss. If she went him first and he told her no and she said she was not taking no for an answer, it would tip him off and he would have had her watched and tapped. She would never have been able to get that story published b/c the minute they caught her speaking to any member of the press they would have opened up a full court press on the craven publication.

Focus. Where else was she to go? How else was she to protect the ability to get the story published?

People in the clandestine services and big chuncks of DOJ are not covered by the Whistlebloer Protection Act.

There is a lot of disinformation in this thread and a lot of mixing apples and oranges.

All of these things you think she “ought” to have done are completely irrelevant to her situation.

First you have to understand the IG system and where it fits in. Second you need to read for content the whistleblower protection act. Third you must confie yourself to the facts curently available. This woman was in the freakin’ IG’s Office. This is where the other whistleblowers come to make THEIR complaints. She (and her boss–forgot his name–I rather expect him to quit soon, they have totally dissed the poor man) are the penultimate place these complaints go. After the IG, there is only the whitewasher himself, Goss.

ARGGGH. I am so frustrated. When it comes to leaking from CIA, DOJ ot NSA the whistleblowers have to go to (ultimatly)Goss, Abu, and Rummy.

NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND why the mass uprising of wellmeaning civil servants that you hope will expose the corruption aren’t doing it?

They are gagged. Gagged by otherwise good laws that they actually believe in and don’t want to break or bend because of the effect that will have on future leakers.

They are trying to play by the rules. Rules they believe in. Their own decency and integrity is being used as weapon to keep them quiet!!

Sorry for typos. Getting emotional

Taylor, thanks for your terrific posts. I saw you on television, know that you are looking to do radio again, but honestly I think you are better suited for television! Hope you will send out your resume and discussion ideas for the Sunday morning programs and others, you are like 100 times better than Biden et al.

We’ll follow you over to your regular blog. Goodbye [a contraction for ‘God be w ye’]

Tim # 102–

Oh I don’t know about that– seems to me a lot of the younguns are just about the same as they always are– maybe a tad more involved with wars raging OOC. They are, however, the children and grandchildren of the voters. I just had a barcalounger former w. supporter, my painter, come by and said “you were right, I was wrong– I never should have given you grief over your Kerry bumpersticker.” His complaint– gas prices, the war is going wrong, health care… ‘course he blamed the durn ayrabs too. ;( but some progress.

Steve # 105– what should she have expected the Congress would do??? With Hoekstra and Roberts and the rest of the do-nothing-that-the WH-doesn’t- want republicans in control??? Please go read the Ray McGovern piece I linked to earlier.

http://www.tompaine.com/articl…..choice.php

Tim: re young people

I was 18 when the Watergate burglary occurred and 19 when the Senate Watergate Committee held its hearings. I believe I fully understood what was going on. (Two or three years earlier, I might not have). If the MSM would just do its job, I think at least those of voting age should have no trouble realizing the importance of these events.

lhp 77 – it looks so much better in your post. *g*

This is going to be a series of disjointed quickie posts, bc more than one link per post gets me put on comment hold and bc I am going back and forth on other things anyway, but there are two different issues.

First – did MaryO violate the exiting Executive Order by disseminating classified information. All I can speak to is the issues on the secret renditions and torture, and those are very clearly illegal, under domestic and international law, and their illegality is why our Government denies their existence. In any event, as lhp and others have said already, no matter what stamp you put on it, you can’t claim a document is classified if it would violate the classification PROHIBITIONS .

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

If we are talking secret rendition and secret black ops prisons – trying to claim “classified†status is like calling your Poodle a German Shepard. Saying don’t make it so and most people with eyes and a brain figure it out.

Breaking…

Three large explosions in Egyptian resort town…

New CNN poll… Bush JAR 32%!!!!!!!!!!!! : )

Taylor, what egregious (#116) said. I’m sure we’ll all be stopping in at your blog and the Open Letter To The Washington Post site.

32% JAR via CNN– down, down, down!

22 dead in Dahab…I wonder if yesterday’s UBL tape might have kindled it.

how are the secret prisons illegal ???

get a clue people. The Geneva Conventions are codified in the US Criminal Code

humane treatment of prisoners of war is a prime principle of the Geneva Conventions, and that portion of the Geneva Conventions has been included in the US Criminal Code

so, since Geneva Conventions are lirrored in US Law, DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO QUESTION THE ILLEGALITY OF THE SECRET PRISONS IN EUROPE ???

How about GITMO, anybody want to defend GITMO in the face of the Geneva Conventions and their companion laws in the US Code ???

CNN Has bush at 32 percent ! Wolfie says lowest ever by CNN and reports following….gas prices.

Ghostman – you mentioned the “difference†between the Geneva Conventions and domestic laws (although, keep in mind, treaties and conventions approved by Congress become the law of our land – even Lindsey Graham will, grudgingly, confirm that. In any event, though, if you are looking for an example of a US law that would be at issue, the main one I will give you is the War Crimes Act – all US law, all day, everyday.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/us…..-000-.html
§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s much more and this topic alone could be an opus, but the War Crimes Act, which includes a death penalty, is the one that grabbed Gonzales’ attention when he was the Pres’ Counsel – next post and link.

Tim at #102 – I was going to say, that’s where Rolling Stone mag comes in, and then it dawned on me. That’s probably considered an old geezer’s media outlet, too. Ouch.

cnn – Bush at 32 Approval.

OT
Just heard on CNN that their new poll shows Bush approval rating at 32%.

“32% JAR via CNN– down, down, down!”

Now, instead of “only one third,” we can say “less than one third” of people approve of the preznit.

Here’s something I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…..blower_law

Let’s start with this excerpt in Wikipedia:

…However, in the United States, there are not any cases in which the whistleblower has been tried for “treason”. Moreover, under most U.S. federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower the employee must reasonably believe his or her employer has committed a violation of some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.

Role-prescribed whistleblowing, for example whistleblowing done by quality control personnel or internal auditors, does not constitute whistleblowing in the traditional sense, because the purpose of the employment is to report such things. However, the U.S. courts have uniformily held that persons who hold quality control or auditor positions are protected from retaliation for reporting violations of law or regulations.

There is a false dichotomy between “internal” and “external” whistleblowing, and under U.S. federal law, many courts have failed to distinguish between the two. For example, in the field of federal environmental whistleblowing the federal courts have held that protecting “internal” whistleblowing is wise as a matter of public policy because whistleblower statutes are intended to encourage the free flow of information to prevent violations, “internal” reporting promotes resolving problems at the earliest possible stage, and discouraging “internal” reporting can have disastrous consequences.

Some comments in Wikipedia about whistleblower law in the United States:

In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state in which the case arises. In passing the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the “patchwork and vagaries” of varying state statutes. (Congressional Record p. S7412; S. Rep. No. 107-146, 107th Cong., 2d Session 19 (2002).) Still, a wide variety of federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions.

The patchwork of laws means that victims of retaliation need to be alert to the laws at issue to determine the deadlines and means for making proper complaints. Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (for Arizona State Employees to file a “Prohibited Personnel Practice” Complaint before the Arizona State Personnel Board; and Ohio public employees to file appeals with the State Personnel Board of Review). It is 30 days for environmental whistleblowers to make a written complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]. Federal employees complaining of discrimination, retaliation or other violations of the civil rights laws have 45 days to make a written complaint to their agency’s equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer. Airline workers and corporate fraud whistleblowers have 90 days to make their complaint to OSHA. Nuclear whistleblowers and truck drivers have 180 days to make complaints to OSHA. Victimes of retaliation against union organizing and other concerted activities to improve working conditions have 180 days to make complaints to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Private sector employees have either 180 or 300 days to make complaints to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (depending on whether their state has a “deferral” agency) for discrimination claims on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin or religion. Those who face retaliation for seeking minimum wages or overtime have either two or three years to file a civil lawsuit, depending on whether the court finds the violation was “willful.”

Those who report a false claim against the federal government, and suffer adverse employment actions as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil suit for remedies under the U.S. False Claims Act (FCA). 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Under a “qui tam” provision, the “original source” for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government recovers from the offenders. However, the “original source” must also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovery of the federal funds fraudulently obtained, and must avoid publicizing the claim of fraud until the U.S. Justice Department decides whether to prosecute the claim itself. Such “qui tam” lawsuits must be filed under seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from becoming public until the federal government makes its decision on direct prosecution.

Federal employees could benefit from the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)), and the No Fear Act (which made individual agencies directly responsible for the economic sanctions of unlawful retaliation) if the Office of Special Counsel will uphold their case. Otherwise, 99.44% of all cases go without remedy. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1034), protects the right of members of the armed services to communicate with any member of Congress (even if copies of the communication are sent to others).

Good point #58 — the NH phone jamming scandal shows the 2000 election was stolen….

But why stop at 2000? I won’t be happy until it is common knowledge that the 2004 election was STOLEN as well. And the Mid-terms in 2002 (Georgie suddenly turns Rethuglican for the first time since the Civil War; coincidentally, didn’t turn Rethug until it installed Diebold machines.)

There are now indictments of election workers who falsified the recount totals to ensure there wouldn’t be a more onerous hand recount.

http://www.cleveland.com/elect…..amp;coll=2

Workers accused of fudging ’04 recount
Prosecutor says Cuyahoga skirted rules
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Joan Mazzolini
Plain Dealer Reporter

After the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County election workers secretly skirted rules designed to make sure all votes were counted correctly, a special prosecutor charges.

While there is no evidence of vote fraud, the prosecutor said their efforts were aimed at avoiding an expensive – and very public – hand recount of all votes cast. Three top county elections officials have been indicted, and Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter says more indictments are possible.

Michael Vu, executive director of the Cuyahoga County elections board, said workers followed procedures that had been in place for 23 years. He said board employees had no objection to doing an exhaustive hand count if needed, meaning they had no motive to break the law.

Internet bloggers have cried foul since 2004 about election results in Ohio, one of the key states in deciding the election. They have been tracking Baxter’s investigation with online posts about the indictments.

Baxter’s prosecution centers on Ohio’s safeguards for ensuring that every vote is counted.

Baxter charges that Cuyahoga election workers – mindful of the monthlong Florida recount in 2000 – not only ignored the safeguards but worked to defeat them during Ohio’s 2004 recount.

Cujo:
As far as the law is concerned, I don’t think the whistleblower statutes and procedure make an exception for the situation McCarthy found herself in.

Even if all that is true, which i have no reason to doubt it is, I don’t think its a legal justification, in other words, she can still be charged. Don’t get me wrong, as i said, she is on the moral highground here. It’s the legal highground where she may have a problem. If there is an exception to the whistleblower procedure for people who think their whistleblowing with fall on deaf or complicit ears, I stand corrected. I haven’t seen it. And that’s my point. Regardless of how useless whistleblowing would have been, that is her one safe option. Had she attempted that method first, and then went to the press after her attempts were quashed, she may be in a better legal position. But as i said, i am aware of no exceptions. If there is one, I would think her situation would likely fall into it given what you and susan post.

I totally agree what she did is right, but that don’t make it legal. That’s all i’m saying.

Steve, you should not conclude that I believe McCarthy bypassed whatever internal procedures were called for; as a career government employee, she quite likely did follow procedure. Given, though, that that is but one of the details that have not been confirmed, we will have to wait and see.

Perhaps you should tell us what she should have done if she did go through channels and was shut down? What responsibility does she have to bring this information out where it can be thoroughly examined and where a larger body of government can determine whether this is a program that does serve the people’s interests?

Once again, the argument devolves into being about the leaker, and not about what was leaked. This has been the administration’s standard response on so many issues it easily could be called a pattern of behavior.

Deny, distract and defame: a real testament to the democracy they purport to serve.

Taylor – thanks again for all of your posts. Have already bookmarked your blog and look forward to reading you there.

I have a 22 year old graduating from CU next month (heading for grad schools) and a 17 year old. As Dr. Evil says: “I’m hip”.

The point I was trying to make is that there are kids my kids’ ages who are actually “conservatives”. I remember that blowing my mind even 20 years ago. That there were people younger than I with reactionary principles.

I think these people watch Jon Stewart through jaundiced eyes. I certainly read their thoughts when I visit “right-blogistan”.

Van Riper, the 8th general, is the retired Marine Corps general who monkeyed up the multi-billion dollar “Millenium Challenge” war game. Acting as a commander of opposing forces, he ruined the test of many of our high tech systems by cheating — that is, he acted the way a real opponent would. Knowing the US forces in the simulation would have sophisticated eaves-dropping equipment, he relied on motorcycle couriers to communicate with forces in the field. A first class military mind, clearly an outlier in the bureauracracy that is DoD.

CNN 32% JAR- Holy shit! That’s Gallup- if Gallup’s at 32%- there will be others lower.

Nothing on the CNN website- was it announced on the air?

Heh, not surpisingly my fellow FDL patriots have the news more quickly that I do.

Ghostman,

You could ask instead what was the legal authorization for renditions, torture, and underground prisons. The Administration’s argument has largely been that Article II gives the President the power to do these kinds of things. As many have noted such an argument is too strong. It would allow the President to do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to. It would make the rest of our government and the concept of law itself superfluous. The President would just do what he did and that would be the end of it, no checks, no balances, just raw unfettered power. It is a measure of how ethically, morally, and intellectually bankrupt our nation’s leaders are that they would put forth such a rationale but there it is.

As for the rest, whether we look at this from the domestic Constitutional perspective, the military framework of the UCMJ, or our treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, some one of these or perhaps more than one of these must apply. Yet none of these sanction what George Bush has done.

When some of the more gut churning memos related to Gonzales, Bybee, Addington, Yoo, etc. began to emerge, like slimey grubs turning into destructive beetles, the ABSOLUTE IDIOTS in the yellow press (it just makes me even angrier now that I know Russert and several others are/were lawyers) gave Gonzales and the President incredible and incredulous cover by taking the HUGE smoking gun in the Gonzales memo and focusing on the piglipstick instead. A part of the Gonzales memo had called Geneva conventions “quaint†and the swarmed to that innocuous reference as if it were the truly horrific part of the memo, which caused basic head scratching in the general public.

The horrific part? Gonzales acknowledged in print and far more openly than most incompetent counsel would ever do, that the Administration needed to find duck and cover fast by creating the “enemy combatant†categorization (and even try to apply it to the standing armies of countries we invade ??????????) bc otherwise they (Bush and all his chain and cronies and enablers) would be looking at War Crimes prosecutions.

Here’s the pdf – check down about ½ way on page 2 where Gonzales is telling the Presidnet why they need to override Powell’s advice and legal support and come up with the “enemy combatant†label to try to use as cover (btw – see my prior, when is a Poodle not a German Shepard, post) http://kbonline.typepad.com/ra…..2_pt_1.pdf
“Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . .â€

We are at the point where many in the government are going to have to decide whether to co-operate with the fascists- or tell what they know. Hope some of em have courage.

We are approaching a situation similar to that faced by government employees under Hitler.

Susan in Iowa 56–thanks!!

RW–

Yes, it was on the air. It was the banner on Wolfie’s show (something like “How low can he go?”) and they discussed whether Bush was heading into Nixon territory.

—-

rw,

“Nothing on the CNN website- was it announced on the air?”

Yes. Approve 32%. Disapprove 60%

Holy shit.

The Great Plummet continues.

Who would have guessed?

-GSD

FLORIDA: Just a friendly reminder to clear your schedule for Drinking Liberally, 7:30pm Wednesday, April 26th at New Word Brewery, 1313 E 8th Ave in Ybor City.

I’m franklyt a little shocked by the 32% from Gallup. They were at 36% just last week if I remember correctly. Holy shit! And Gallup is one of the polls that gives Clsuterfuck higher than average ratings!

windy_city_atty @ 1:10 pm (#133) – I totally agree what she did is right, but that don’t make it legal. That’s all i’m saying.

Clearly I’m not a lawyer, but there must be some legal exception that applies when the very people who are violating the law are the ones who would have the responsibility to investigate that illegal activity. Once again, metaphors about foxes and henhouses are dancing in my head. If there isn’t some way of ruling actions like McCarthy’s legal in some way, then there’s a fundamental flaw in our relationship to our government.

It’s too bad there’s no federal whistleblower law that can be applied everywhere, but right now I’d fear the result of this Congress drafting such a law.

Wow – looseheadprop #115, I sure do feel like I’ve been taken to the woodshed on this one; consider me spanked.

I don’t profess to be an expert on whistleblower protocol, nor am I conversant on internal IG office protocol. I think it’s reasonable to expect that even those within the IG’s office have to have somewhere to go with their concerns, and my point was that we still do not have all the details or the chain of events that led to Dana Priest’s article.

I applaud McCarthy for speaking out as she did, and I believe we needed to know about the prisons and black sites. What annoys me – and even us non-experts can be annoyed (and emotional) – is the quickness with which people jump to conclusions and how the argument always ends up being about the messenger, instead of the message.

Hope I haven’t misstated anything…

Oops- the typing delay is getting pretty bad- and I am making mistakes. Sorry.

Fabulous thread, people. Thanks.

As to getting the word out, I’ve been emailing the links I posted to people I know and people I don’t (media). No harm in letting them get more than one copy, if anyone else wants to contact Stewart, Olbermann, and thos silly Dem talking heads who didn’t have any of this in mind on Sunday morning.

Wow, all bets are off! 32% – can the bottom be falling out? Does anyone know when this poll was taken? I’d like to see the results of one taken tomorrow or the next day, depending on when the next scandal du jour pops up.

WORD’S UPTOWN

Cujo359,

“It’s too bad there’s no federal whistleblower law that can be applied everywhere, but right now I’d fear the result of this Congress drafting such a law.”

I looked at this several months ago. It’s been tried and more than once but died in committee, IIRC.

EPU warning.

Steve- How did you make it in the military for 22 years without learning to speak, write, or read English?
Just wondering…

Gallup obviously sees the handwriting and does not want to be left in the dust as the outlier!

Just heard Chimpy refer to the bombings today in Egypt as a “hay-ne-ous” act. That would be “heinous” in, you know, actual English.

—

Let’s ignore Steve. English may not be his native language and he obviously hasn’t had a lot of education. Obviously, the substance of his comments are trollish. So let’s allow him to pursue another hobby.

Back to Mary O.

In addition to the Executive Order, the other set of claims would seem to be related to her employment agreement, which included some confidentiality sections, and the charges that she released information in violation of that agreement and that she did not follow the right channels in that she was not authorized to make the info available to the press.

If we are still talking about her providing information about illegal activities and possible cover-ups of illegal activities – . BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There is no way to legally contract with someone to cover up illegal actions. This is distinct from if she had, for example, leaked the aluminum tubes memo that the Pres is still sitting on. There she would be relying (again, here we are talking about contract law and not the Exec Order) on whether or not the failure to release the info, while releasing less reliable info to the contrary, was a “wrongful†act by a public official in violation of their fiduciary duties etc. and you would have a much more complex matter. However, all I have seen referenced is the secret prisons info that that was in Priest’s article.

I don’t see how that becomes a close case at all. If the Gov cannot, under the most basic tenets of common law – the memory of man runneth not to the contrary – contract with you to remain silent about illegal activities, they can’t say – “well, you have to remain silent about our illegal activities BUT FOR your ability to talk to this one guy in this one department who won’t say or do anything about it.†SNORT!! Someone is putting the bull in baloney on that concept.

Sure, there is a set of procedures for whistleblowing and more power to them. Going through the Inspector General’s office is just fine but where the issue is that the govt is BREAKING THE LAW, absolutely no way can you contractually bind someone to ONLY speak about this if they do it under the whistleblower procedures spelled out in their contract. Let’s say Rumsfeld walks into the press room and shoots every single reporter there, leaving only a CIA agent and a few Secret Service folks around. So, you would “buy†the concept that the CIA agent can’t mention the murders at all unless and until they go through the whistleblower procedures???????

Of course not. I’ve got a feeling that the Admin and Goss and JCS etc. are all getting some really good stuff privately sent back for them from Afghanistan if anyone is buying into that concept – that lawbreaking is like the love that cannot speak its name and you only get to tell someone else who keeps it quiet too.

In any event, the law never requires a futile act, even if this were not a lawbreaking issue, and if the IG’s office was not pursuing the issue, that would be an out, even on other types of grounds, to pursue another avenue. In this particular case, CIA is one of the five departments where the IG can (and is) nullified by the department head. POGO (Project on GOvt. Oversight) has lots of info for anyone interested, but this is the quick and dirty on this particular point
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/po…..ecuri.html

One reason national security whistleblowers often do not go to their agency Inspector Generals is because they fear that the IGs are not independent enough from the agency they are meant to oversee. This, however, isn’t just a fear, it’s reality. National security-related IGs are less independent because the head of the agency can easily stop an investigation or audit. As the Congressional Research Service report “Statutory Offices of Inspector General: Establishment and Evolution” (pdf) states:
Under the IG Act, as amended, the heads of only five agencies—the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and Treasury, plus the U.S. Postal Service—may prevent the IG from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or issuing a subpoena, in order to preserve national security interests or to protect on-going criminal investigations, among other specified reasons. When exercising this power, the department head must transmit an explanatory statement for such action to the House Government Reform Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and other appropriate congressional committees and subcommittees within 30 days. Under the CIA IG Act, the Director of Central Intelligence may similarly prohibit the CIA IG from conducting investigations, audits, or inspections and, when doing so, must notify the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of the reasons for such action within 7 days. [all emphasis POGO’s]
BTW – wouldn’t it be nice to know if that procedure was actually followed? That is not “the heads of the committees†it is the COMMITTEES. ;-)

Then there is the final matter of what happens in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, if something were to get out of the IG’s office.
http://www.pogo.org/p/governme…..lower.html
The U.S. Special Counsel, the principal protector of federal whistleblower and merit system rights, has abruptly ordered more than 20 percent of his headquarters legal and investigative staff to relocate or be fired. According to a letter of protest filed today by three national whistleblower watchdog groups, those targeted for forced moves are all career employees hired before Scott Bloch became Special Counsel, as part of a purge to stifle dissent and re-staff the agency with handpicked loyalists.

In their letter, the groups pointed out that since Bloch became Special Counsel, all OSC positions, including positions previously occupied by career civil servants, have been filled on a non-competitive basis by Bloch’s personal picks. None of Mr. Bloch’s hand-selected hires have been asked to relocate.

Correction: that would be “is ” trollish. Looks like I could use an English lesson as well.

GSD – You out did yourself with prime, grade A Snark in the comments section over at Think Progress. I hope I have your blessing to post it here becaus I think it is suitable for framing.
“Here let me fill you in on this guy. He’s a coward, a traitor, a Clintonista, a partisan Democrat, he gave money to Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy and Joseph Stalin, he is gay, he’s a hack, he got his job by being a suck-up, he has a book for sale, he is out of touch, he is a thug, a goon, a thrid world dictator wannabe, he looks like Noriega, Pinochet, Khaddaffy, Idi Amin, he’s selling a new book, he hates America, he hates freedom, loves Al Qaeda, he is French, Muslim, queer, blah,blah,blah…..

I was just trying to save our resident trolls some typing.”

-GSD

Comment by GSD — April 24, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

Great Stuff – (polite golf clap)

steve is a troll. please don’t respond to him should he post again.

looseheadprop (#115) has said all we need to know about you-know-who’s dyslexic ramblings. more may come out about mccarthy’s situation in the future. we can get on to more pertinent stuff now.

FITZ, FEINGOLD & FDL!!!!!!!!!

BRUSSELS, April 20 — The European Union’s antiterrorism chief told a hearing today that he has not been able to prove that secret C.I.A. prisons existed in Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04…..ition.html

Apparently this didn’t take the first time around.
A few more points for the gang….
* McCarthy is not a “whistleblower”, she is a mole, that had to be caught.
* Libby did indeed lose his job.
* It’s pretty funny to see the graphic “it’s OK if we do it” when both Harmon and Kerry say it’s breaking the law, but…
* Gee isn’t it amazing that Dana Priest’s husband gets jobs for her associate’s husband (Joe Wilson) and they all hate Bush together?
* By the left’s definitions, Benedict Arnold” would be a “whistleblower as well.

someone earlier was wondering about the source of the graphic. it’s prolly a real 1930’s era Nazi poster with the message, armband and flag symbol changed. i don’t know for sure about this but i’d bet $5 on it.

I so love EPU territory. I didn’t get to see lhp’s 115 before, but AMEN and pass the biscuits.

To wrap my EPU, re: CIA agent Spann. I don’t know if Madsen is correct at all about Hadley being the first to leak the status, or about Spann having agents he was trying to run, but I think this info, from when it all happened (including comments from Larry Johnson and Rise) provide some interesting context.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb…..11-29.html

Yesterday the Afghan war resulted in very public recognition by the CIA that it had lost one its own. In a press release, the agency praised Johnny Michael Spann, a 32-year-old former marine who worked for the agency’s secret espionage division. Yesterday Spann’s father called his son a hero.
. . .
MARGARET WARNER: You’ve covered the intelligence community for quite some time. Have you ever received a press release before announcing publicly, identifying the death of an agent?
JAMES RISEN: No, not like this. This was a surprise to me, and I think it was… It was unusual. It’s not unprecedented, but I think the CIA decided to announce his death because it had been widely reported already and some of the reports had been somewhat garbled, suggesting that he was a CIA contractor, when in fact he was a staff officers. And I think the CIA decided that, because there was so much attention already on the incident and because it was well known that they have officers in the country, that they thought it was okay to announce this.
MARGARET WARNER: Ted Gup, what did you make of this very public acknowledgment? You’ve written widely– that’s are what your book is all about– about the men and women who have never been identified publicly who died in the line of duty.
TED GUP: Right. I think Jim Risen is right in his read on this. I would caution that we not read too much into this disclosure. I don’t think that it represents a sudden break with tradition or policy at the agency, a sudden rush towards revelation and openness. I think that the reason that his identity could be revealed was not only because it was somewhat compromised by the media, because in the past others have been outed, so to speak, by the media in life and in death. And the agency has not owned up to it. But in this case, I think he was purely paramilitary in his functions, as opposed to the sort of clandestine case officer working in an embassy who has a long-running relationship with foreign nationals, running them as agents, getting intelligence and documents and such.
So in this case, exposing his identity, I think, did not run the risk of endangering foreign nationals who are who were reporting to him. I think he was in country a brief time. He had only been at the agency for two years, and so I think they could afford to disclose his identity without those other ramifications.
MARGARET WARNER: Well, Larry Johnson that’s what, in fact, the CIA spokesman said yesterday, no threat to national security. How do you see it?
LARRY JOHNSON: Boy, you talk about being dead wrong, and it’s amateur hour at CIA. Number one, they have now put Mr. Spann’s family at risk in the United States. I grieve for that family, and my prayers and tears go out to them.
MARGARET WARNER: You mean you think they would be targets?
LARRY JOHNSON: Well, they’re definitely targets now because you’ve identified them. It is unprecedented to identify the family. One of the reasons you don’t go out and identify case officers, and this man was a case officer, he was not an agent. Agents are paid traders for other countries. He was a case officer in the tradition of CIA. But the virtue of CIA is supposed to be clandestine and covert. You know you’ve blown it when it’s on the front page of the Washington Post, the New York Times and on the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. In my experience, when there have been CIA individuals that someone could report on, the media has always been responsible about protecting that.
What is unprecedented now is not just CIA, When you have Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announcing that the CIA is operating there, by doing this, they’re showing, one, they don’t understand clandestine operations; number two, you put… Mrs. Gup should be worrying about grieving for her husband, and the father of her children…
MARGARET WARNER: You mean Mrs. Spann.
LARRY JOHNSON: I’m sorry. She should be grieving for, that instead, now she needs to be seriously concerned about her security. I’ve had people over there, “was this man over there torturing Taliban?” There are radical extremists still in this country and if they believe this man was torturing, it’s not beyond them to target a family. And George Tenet had better put a 24-hour security detail with that family. He’s a brave American, his farther is exactly right, he’s a hero but the thrust of CIA is it’s to be done in the dark, not on the front pages.
MARGARET WARNER: Ted Gup, your reaction to that. I mean do you think this family is in danger do you think this was really amateur hour?
. . .
MARGARET WARNER: Why do you think it was released?
LARRY JOHNSON: Because the CIA has decided that they’re in a public relations battle. They are correctly under the gun for the intelligence failures of the 11th. There are some severe problems with inside, and the notion that they’re competing with special operations for press coverage, the only way they get access like that and the kind of access that Bob Woodward has provided on the front pages of the post-is because people at George Tenet’s level have given the thumbs-up.
MARGARET WARNER: Do you think that’s possible, Ted Gup, that that was the reason for doing this?
TED GUP: Well, I think it’s possible that certainly the agency’s concerned with its image. . . .

I love and must have this graphic. Please let me know more of its availability. I think it would make a splendid t-shirt.

Anne

Sorry if I got a little testy. No, there is no place else to go beyong the Ig’s Office except Porter Goss.

I know, I used to be a Counsel to an Inspector General. One of the problems with the Federal IG system is that the IG reports to the cabinet officer in charge of the host agency.

In the case of the CIA, after Iran/Contra (the last time the CIA Director whitewashed and would not let the IG do his job) Congres made the CIA IG a Senate confirmed position (the rest are just regular political–yup, political appointees) . The CIA IG uniquely reports to both the CIA Director and to Congress.

This was supposed to give him a teensy bit of independance. Most IG’s, like the guy who keeps issuing those blistering reports at Homeland Security, have to relying only upon their own intergrity and intestinal fortitude.

It kinda worked for a few years.

However, IIRC Assoc. Press reported that the current CIA IG was polygraphed along with MAry O.

That’s why I figure he is probably gonna quit. This is an unbelievable slap in the face. It also makes me suspect that the IG wanted to do the right thing and Goss told him no, leading Mary O. to do a desperate thing. But I’m just guessing.

Mary O. I snot the only person looking at losing their job or facing possible prosecution if they speak out. Further, the Executive Agreements have a good and valuable purpose. No one wants to see them become meaningless.

Anyone who wants to expose the corruption of these mutts is between a rock and a hard place.

If having Bush as President leads to the permanent marginalization of the entire Republican Party, then, one day, the country might look back on this era and consider the sacrifices made as worthwhile.

fahrender @ 1:41 pm (#163) – Well, if ole’ troll steve got Mary and looseheadprop to post what they have, it was worth it.

Every day it seems that the circle gts drawn a little bit tighter around this group. Sooner or later, they are going to run out of wiggle room.

On the illegality of the extraordinary renditions, good arguments seem to have been established here on the illegality within the US criminal code, and the point has been made that the US Constitution includes any international treaties to which the US is party.

What amplifies this is that the US Constitution says that these treaties shal become part of the US Constitution itself, and shall be the Supreme law of the land. In other words, any agreements that the US makes as a nation are absolute law, with which not to trifle.

That’s powerful stuff, and what has bothered me is that in spite of this, the convention under Bush from the beginning (like, as seen in his first few acts as Preznit) has been to flaunt a disregard for these treaties: the ABM, the pre-Kyoto Accord thing we signed, the Millennium Development Goals, the Geneva Conventions, etc…

This has burned my ass for so long there ain’t nothin’ left back there…

shooter242 #165:

Apparently, you didn’t read enough of the NYT article (I know it’s hard to concentrate when you think you’ve discovered an actual moonbat-gotcha).

There is plenty of belief that they will find the evidence, they just hadn’t done it yet.

shooter242 @ 1:44 pm (#165)

Apparently this [NYT article about Euro commission investigation] didn’t take the first time around.

You’ll find irrelevance has a short half-life here. That they were unable to find any evidence is beside the point. Evidence clearly exists in the illegally classified records of our own government.

A few more points for the gang….
* McCarthy is not a “whistleblowerâ€, she is a mole, that had to be caught.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. You have no evidence to back up this assertion.

* Libby did indeed lose his job.

So far, no one has threatened him with prosecution for having done what he did to Plame and the CIA. When Bush or one of his flunkies does, get back to us. Further, he only lost his job after he was indicted, not before. IOW, he wasn’t fired for leaking the information, either. He was fired for being indicted for lying.

* It’s pretty funny to see the graphic “it’s OK if we do it†when both Harmon and Kerry say it’s breaking the law, but…

It’s pretty funny when people who don’t know us assume people who voted for the PATRIOT Act without reading it would speak for us.

* Gee isn’t it amazing that Dana Priest’s husband gets jobs for her associate’s husband (Joe Wilson) and they all hate Bush together?

I’d say that’s because they have a higher ethical standard than those around them.

* By the left’s definitions, Benedict Arnold†would be a “whistleblower as well.

Proceeding along that rhetorical line, by the right’s definition, Adolf Hitler was a patriot hounded by his political opponents for finding a tough way to deal with religious differences .

An answer less infantile than your assertion would be that there is absolutely no relationship between a general who switched sides due to feelings of jealousy and someone who reported illegal conduct by her own government that was illegally classified. But sometimes a short example beats a long explanation.

Yes, I know this twerp is a troll, but I thought it would be nice to summarize what we’ve written here so he doesn’t actually have to learn anything.

Thanks for mentioning Jane Harman (who we in Californian are proud to send to the House). Check out Mark Levin (NRO & Hannity’s cabin boy) and his attack on what he calls a “well trained parrot”. Levin is a joke.

On Blitzer’s Situation Room minutes ago, it was reported a friend of Dr. McCarthy said McCarthy denies she leaked the secret prison information. This ties in with the CIA now changing their story to saying she was a serial leaker. Why would any thinking person believe Goss over McCarthy?

That picture is awesome. Into the political folder it goes on my computer!

Propaganda Remix Project
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

MSNBC’s web page has the Newsweek article by Hosenball and Isikoff in which Dr. McCarthy’s attorney denies McCarthy was the source of Priest’s secret prison story.

According to the Newsweek article, McCarthy never confessed to leaking classified information, but to not reporting contact with reporters.

I guess it’s too much to ask for the “liberal” media to get the facts correct.

I am waiting for Mary McCarthy T shirts, “a hero in the Bush dark ages”, to be sold around town. Her face should compete with Che Guevara’s on posters hung in college dorms. What a superb case study for the ethics in law professors.

How many leakers is it gonna take before people get fed up and demand an investigation? Investigation is the centrist choice, between ignoring overwhelming cause for alarm and pushing for impeachment without enough evidence. How many leakers have to speak out before the American public will contact their representatives to demand it?

Yawn. Anyone ready to find an Oak tree? I have a rope.

Call me when you want to get off your bottoms, and REALLY do something.

Let’s see, if you take 300 million, and take 68% of those 300 million ready to storm D.C…..I wonder how long the draft-dodgers inb the WH can hold out???

Ok, Bush is an idiot and yes a lot of reality has emerged since the 2004 election. But Taylor you are in LALa land if you believe that Kerry, a flawed, inept candidate who muffed his chance, would “win in a walk.” Forget Kerry’s manifold failings, but the GOP would and will fight to the bitter end to retain power. Kid yourself not about how serious these folks are about protecting congressional dominance and the perk of the White House. Expect a dogfight regardless of polls and remember his base may be turning on Bush but they still want someone they trust to run the state. Wake up!