Decision ‘08

Hitchens On McCarthy: Where’s the Special Prosecutor?

Christopher Hitchens is willing to accept the justification put forth by Mary McCarthy and her supporters that she only leaked illegally from the best motives, largely from his own experience at her willingness to clobber Clinton over his ‘wag-the-doggery’ in the midst of Monicagate. He does, however, wonder why the appointment of a special prosecutor is good for Joe Wilson but not the administration:

…Mary McCarthy has been given the sack. And the New York Times rushes to her aid, with a three-hankie story on April 23, moistly titled “Colleagues Say Fired CIA Analyst Played by the Rules.” This is only strictly true if she confined her disagreement to official channels, as she did when she wrote to Clinton in 1998. Sadly enough, the same article concedes that McCarthy may have lied and then eventually told the truth about having unauthorized contact with members of the press.

Well! In that case the remedy is clear. A special counsel must be appointed forthwith, to discover whether the CIA has been manipulating the media. All civil servants and all reporters with knowledge must be urged to comply, and to produce their notes or see the inside of a jail. No effort must be spared to discover the leaker. This is, after all, the line sternly proposed by the New York Times and many other media outlets in the matter of the blessed Joseph Wilson and his martyred CIA spouse, Valerie Plame.

I have a sense that this is not the media line that will be taken in the case of McCarthy, any more than it was the line taken when James Risen and others disclosed the domestic wiretapping being conducted by the NSA. Risen’s story is also the object of an investigation into unlawful disclosure. One can argue that national security is damaged by unauthorized leaks, or one can argue that democracy is enhanced by them. But one cannot argue, in the case of a man who says that his CIA wife did not send him to Niger, that the proof that his wife did send him to Niger must remain a state secret. If one concerned official can brief the press off the record, then so can another.

It has long been pretty obvious to me that the official-secrecy faction within the state machinery has received a gigantic fillip from the press witch hunt against Lewis Libby and Karl Rove. What bureaucrat could believe the luck of an editorial campaign to uncover and punish leaking? A campaign that furthermore invokes the most reactionary law against disclosure this century: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? It was obvious from the first that the press, in taking Wilson and Plame at their own estimation, was fashioning a rod for its own back. I await the squeals that will follow when this rod is applied, which it will be again and again.

You see the point, right? Leak illegally to buttress the administration’s case, and you get PlameGate; leak illegally to slam the administration, and you’re a saint. Then again, we all know how Hitchens feels about saints…

UPDATE 8:55 p.m.: Our good friend the Real Ugly American debates Glenn Greenwald on the legality of the McCarthy leak here…

14 Responses to “Hitchens On McCarthy: Where’s the Special Prosecutor?”

1 Anonymous Liberal Says:
April 24th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Leak illegally to buttress the administration’s case, and you get PlameGate; leak illegally to slam the administration, and you’re a saint.

Or leak illegally and needlessly blow a CIA agent’s cover vs. leak illegally to expose a network a secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe.

I personally think McCarthy should be ready to deal with the consequences if she broke the law, but in terms of the importance of the information that was leaked to the public, it’s not even close. The fact that the CIA is running a network of secret torture prisons in former Soviet gulags is something the American people should know about. In contrast, it’s pretty hard to see how the public benefited from knowing that Joe Wilson’s CIA agent wife suggested that he be sent to Niger. The former is incredibly important. The latter is at best trivial.
2 Mark Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Anonymous, I get your point - though, of course, we differ greatly on whether Valerie Plame’s cover was intentionally blown, and by whom. You touched on something there, though, that I think we can find common ground on - if you think something’s going on that needs to be illegally leaked, you need to be prepared for the consequences. You may be morally right, but you still broke the law. That formulation would also apply, of course, to the people that give James Risen his NSA leaks…
3 Sister Toldjah Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 7:10 am
ABC news and the equivalency card

When it comes to leaks which undermine our national security, we can always count on our media to come to the defense of those who leaked the information by either a) referring to them as “whistleblowers” or b) utilizing the “everybod…
4 dmac Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 8:14 am
She signed an agreement not to divulge classified information while she was an employee of the CIA - period. If she felt so strongly about the issue, why did she not resign immediately, and then speak out?

A simple solution, but the fact that she wanted to continue in her occupation makes her so - called noble motives highly suspect.
5 megapotamus Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 9:59 am
It is not at all clear that any crime at all was committed in the Plame case. If she was not under cover the information is not classified that is why we have that extra law on covert identities. The prison info… (and the idea that these were some kind of torture centers has NO foundation of any sort from what I have seen and given the laughable definition of “torture” applied to Gitmo… well…) on the other hand certainly was, was of vital importance to the war effort as far as the Executive was concerned and did provide great service to the enemy. I love the Humpty-Dumptyism applied here by our Leftwing fellows. A word means exactly what they want it to mean at any given instance; no more, no less. Luckily the Judiciary yet operates on more firm principles. Let’s see these detainees (again, no individuals are identified) gear up with the ACLU and tell us exactly what went on. If these prisons are mirrors of Guantanamo, we know the detainees generally gain much needed weight during their confinement, are given elaborate consideration as regards practicing their religion and for most of them, they get their first brush with modern healthcare including dentistry. Is this what was going on in the mountains of Poland? I heartily denounce it if so. These prison conditions are shockingly lax.
6 peter Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Mary McCarthy (through her lawyers) says that she did not divulge secrets, was not aware of the information which was released, and passed her polygraph test. Further, she put in her resignation in February. While there are two sides to every story — and doubtless the truth here will be sorted out — nonetheless it might be helpful to get some facts before calling her ignoble:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401601.html
7 dmac Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
So her paid mouthpiece claims she didn’t reveal sensitive information - wow, never saw that one coming, huh? But Peter, you had earlier railed against anyone who had a problem with her leaking such information - you claimed that she was a true patriot for doing so.

What are you claiming now? That she didn’t do it in the first place, that we’re all jumping to conclusions, how dare we impugn the integrity of this modern day Joan of Arc? What kind of furious backpedalling are you engaging in here?

Newsweek (the most rabidly anti - Bush pub there is) is now reporting that Porter Goss personally oversaw this investigation, so one would tend to think that they caught her red - handed. If not, then huge PR mistake by the new guy - highly unlikely.

Funny how that little sworn statement problem keeps getting in the way of her upcoming hagiography - funnier still is watching her defenders fall all over themselves, while they go completely into the tank on this one.
8 dmac Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Oh man, here’s another interesting piece of news:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/06/98061701_tpo.html

She was the special assistant to the President? She was appointed by the guy who tried to sneak out classified intelligence IN HIS PANTS?

And you’re going to continue to insist that, oh no, her politics had nothing to do with her actions? Wow, let’s get that tank ready for you to dive into - the water’s cold in there.
9 dmac Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
…and the hits just keep on comin’…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/world/europe/21rendition.html?ex=1303272000&en=039e409dd7ddfc67&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

There’s your ultimate confirmation from your bible, Peter. Of course, the guy could be lying…at any event, that woman’s going to be put on ice.
10 peter Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
1) If Mary McCarthy’s actions were influenced by her politics, then why did she “clobber Clinton” over the bombing of Khartoum and write a formal letter of protest? Doesn’t sound like a partisan to me.

2) The cite in post nine is irrelevant. First, none of the countries which were previously identified in the press as being used for extraordinary rendition are in Europe (the countries identified were Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekhistan). The article suggests that Poland and Romania were also involved, although both deny it officially. In any event, I would not expect a European anti-terrorist bureaucrat to know much about what happens in Egypt or Morocco.

There is also an obvious reason for him to deny the existence of these camps. If any European government admitted to running secret prisons for America, there would be a firestorm of protest loud enough to bring down governments.

The fact that the US government has not (to my knowledge) denied the existence of secret prisons overseas is an implicit acknowledgement that they exist. If they did not exist, you could bet that the administration would protest as loudly as Bush did when he promised to find those who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity (although this now is as convincing as O. J. Simpson’s vow to find “the real killers.”)

Are you suggesting that the CIA is giving polygraphs to its employees to find the source of leaks which were based on false information?
11 dmac Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Actually, I think the CIA launched an internal probe to find out who’s been leaking all the information, and nabbed the big fish here. Goss made it clear when he took over that those who were performing the leaks would be punished through their actions, and that he had a legal justification for doing so. Looks like a few of his employees felt that he wasn’t serious, or that they’d get away with it.

And of course I wasn’t suggesting the information was false, but if it was, then bravo -the classic definition of an intelligence sting.

…” there would be a firestorm of protest loud enough to bring down governments.”

Ah yes - share the fantasy.

“The fact that the US government has not (to my knowledge) denied the existence of secret prisons overseas is an implicit acknowledgement that they exist…”

The favorite leftist ploy here - by not commenting on classified information that could seriously compromise our intelligence operations, you’re de facto guilty as charged. Orwell would be so proud of you.
12 peter Says:
April 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
1) You don’t think that if it were revealed that there were secret CIA torture prisons in Munich, for example, that it wouldn’t bring down the government? Aznar lost the election in Spain for sending a token force to Iraq – don’t you think that the reaction would be far worse for outsourcing torture for the Americans?

2) First of all, I don’t see how the revelation of the existence of torture prisons compromises our intelligence operations. If anything, the prospect of being sent to Egypt or Syria to be tortured is a pretty strong disincentive from doing evil. Secondly, if these prisons did not exist, the government would most certainly deny it.

3) I admire your blind faith in the ultimate wisdom of the current administration. Now that less than a third of the American public approve of Bush’s administration, you’re one of the few left to carry the flag.
13 dmac Says:
April 26th, 2006 at 7:38 am
“First of all, I don’t see how the revelation of the existence of torture prisons compromises our intelligence operations…”

Hey, you sound just like the NYT - amazing coincidence here, I’m sure. As for your statement, you should read the history of our intelligence operations, beginning with the OSS and Wild Bill, through William Casey’s tenure at the CIA. If you still think these revelations (coupled with the NSA leaks) don’t seriously compromise our intelligence, then you’ve got political blinders on that would be more suited for the horses running the trifecta at Churchill Downs.

“Now that less than a third of the American public approve of Bush’s administration…”

So I understand that you’d prefer a President that compromises our national security in the guise of being more popular with the all - important polling results of the moment. Now I understand why you loved Clinton so much…
14 peter Says:
April 26th, 2006 at 10:24 am
1) “You sound just like the NYT:” you know what they say about great minds.

2) There are two things which you are not recognizing. First, the announced policy of the current administration is that it has the right to seize anyone at any time in any place and detain him without charge indefinitely by labeling him an enemy combatant. There are no checks on this power: it is within the sole discretion of the executive branch. Secondly, the administration has violated the existing laws regarding surveillance and continues to do so. Finally, the administration is reportedly using rendition to a far greater extent than ever before to send suspects – some of whom were innocent and later released – overseas to torture prisons.

The second thing you are not recognizing is that this is an administration which can’t get anything right. From the Iraqi occupation to Katrina to last week’s meeting with Hu, it’s the F Troop of Presidential administrations.

My point is this: we have a system of government which has always valued transparency, due process, and balances among the three branches of government (at least in theory – Japanese were incarcerated in WWII, etc.). You are quite willing to allow an incompetent administration to do anything it chooses, in secrecy, provided they stick a national security label on it. I would never take that bet.

3) You are right that polling results aren’t the ultimate criterion of how effective a President is. I’m sure that Churchill’s approval rating was pretty dismal at the end of his administration. The fact that Bush is about as popular as bird flu doesn’t necessarily indicate his ineptitude. His actions do. However, I think that Bush has compromised our national security in ways too numerous to name. An effective President would safeguard our nuclear plants, power grid, water reservoirs, air cargo, rail lines, and chemical factories. An effective President would have a muscular Homeland Security department, and would not trust the leadership of FEMA to someone who can’t find his ass with both hands. Invading a country which did not attack us tied down our resources to fight terror, strengthened our enemies, and gave Al Qaeda the best recruiting tool it could hope for. I think that George Bush has compromised our security both here and abroad. Since you mention Clinton: I guarantee that he would have done far more in truly protecting us than Bush has ever done. That’s why “I loved Clinton so much,” and that’s why I feel differently about his successor.