aREDSKIN Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 BREAKING NEWS By Robert Windrem and Andrea Mitchell NBC News Updated: 6:48 p.m. ET April 21, 2006 WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday. The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned. Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA's inspector general's office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations. Continued......... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423825/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Hang her. That will stop leaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Hang her. That will stop leaks Eh, I was gonna say prosecute her. And it never stopped the leaks in the Soviet Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 The over-under on some goofy lib saying Bush authorized this is 10 posts. Give me the under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. The information was allegedly provided to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who wrote about CIA prisons in November and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting. Place Dana Priest next to her... Wonder if it was a tickle party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I wonder how long in prison she will get or if they will go for lethal injection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 The over-under on some goofy lib saying Bush authorized this is 10 posts. Give me the under. Bush authorized this... oops you said 'lib'...my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 And it appears that she lost her job over............ nothing:laugh: http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/04/21/eu_official_no_evidence_of_illegal_cia_action/ BRUSSELS — Investigations into reports that US agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union’s antiterrorism coordinator said yesterday. The investigations also have not turned up any proof of secret renditions of terror suspects on EU territory, Gijs de Vries told a European Parliament committee investigating the allegations. The European Parliament’s probe and a similar one by the continent’s leading human rights watchdog are looking into whether US intelligence agents interrogated Al Qaeda suspects at secret prisons in Eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights through Europe. But so far investigators have not identified any human rights violations, despite more than 50 hours of testimony by human rights activists and individuals who said they were abducted by US intelligence agents, de Vries said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 And it appears that she lost her job over............ nothing:laugh:http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/04/21/eu_official_no_evidence_of_illegal_cia_action/ BRUSSELS — Investigations into reports that US agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union’s antiterrorism coordinator said yesterday. The investigations also have not turned up any proof of secret renditions of terror suspects on EU territory, Gijs de Vries told a European Parliament committee investigating the allegations. The European Parliament’s probe and a similar one by the continent’s leading human rights watchdog are looking into whether US intelligence agents interrogated Al Qaeda suspects at secret prisons in Eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights through Europe. But so far investigators have not identified any human rights violations, despite more than 50 hours of testimony by human rights activists and individuals who said they were abducted by US intelligence agents, de Vries said. I'm rather surprised at that ruling. There was a case reported here about a year ago of such a rendition. It aparantly came out in an Italian court. Supposedly several people had kidnapped an Italian muslim cleric, in Italy. The Italians were monitoring the cleric for suspected terrorist links, so they saw the kidnapping take place. The Italians were able to track the movements of the kidnappers by going over cell phone records. The kidnappers, immediatly after the act, contacted seneral phone numbers in Langly, and phoned the Colonel in charge of ase security at a USAF base nearby. When the kidnap van arrived at the base, it was allowed to drive through security without stopping. Shortly therafter, a private jet registered to a US corporation took off from the USAF base, and was tracked to Germany, where it landed for a while, then flew towards the mideast. Supposedly, the kidnap victim, a year later, phoned his wife (still in Italy). He said he'd been tortured in Egypt, and that he'd been released, but wasn't allowed to leave Egypt. He said (correctly) that he would not be able to contact her again. The evidence seemed pretty conclusive, to me, that this was an operation conducted by the CIA, or by some other organization that has the authority to phone base security at an overseas military base and order base security to allow unmarked vans through security without stopping them. While it's tough to give credence to someone who claims "I was tortured by the CIA", it seems it would be tough for someone to fake driving a kidnap victim through the gates of a USAF base, overseas, in an unmarked van, without stopping, after 9/11. (The Italian court convicted several people of kidnapping, although they admitted that it was likely that all they convicted were several fake IDs.) While I speculated when the article was posted about the possibility that the Italians had authorised the kidnapping (they were watching the guy for suspected terrorist ties), and in fact that the Italians may even have requested that the US remove some pesky suspected terrorist that they couldn't catch, it did seem just about irrefutable that the kidnapping had taken place, and that it was authorised by the US government. ----- I could see a court in Brussels ruling "insuffecient evidence". Or even ruling that the renditions were legal. But I find it hard to believe that they could conclude that it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Further down the article: Sources said the CIA believes McCarthy had more than a dozen unauthorized contacts with Priest. Information about subjects other than the prisons may have been leaked as well.The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the firing. So, we have a leak about somebody geting fired over a leak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I'm rather surprised at that ruling. There was a case reported here about a year ago of such a rendition. It aparantly came out in an Italian court. Supposedly several people had kidnapped an Italian muslim cleric, in Italy. The Italians were monitoring the cleric for suspected terrorist links, so they saw the kidnapping take place. The Italians were able to track the movements of the kidnappers by going over cell phone records. The kidnappers, immediatly after the act, contacted seneral phone numbers in Langly, and phoned the Colonel in charge of ase security at a USAF base nearby. When the kidnap van arrived at the base, it was allowed to drive through security without stopping. Shortly therafter, a private jet registered to a US corporation took off from the USAF base, and was tracked to Germany, where it landed for a while, then flew towards the mideast. Supposedly, the kidnap victim, a year later, phoned his wife (still in Italy). He said he'd been tortured in Egypt, and that he'd been released, but wasn't allowed to leave Egypt. He said (correctly) that he would not be able to contact her again. The evidence seemed pretty conclusive, to me, that this was an operation conducted by the CIA, or by some other organization that has the authority to phone base security at an overseas military base and order base security to allow unmarked vans through security without stopping them. While it's tough to give credence to someone who claims "I was tortured by the CIA", it seems it would be tough for someone to fake driving a kidnap victim through the gates of a USAF base, overseas, in an unmarked van, without stopping, after 9/11. (The Italian court convicted several people of kidnapping, although they admitted that it was likely that all they convicted were several fake IDs.) While I speculated when the article was posted about the possibility that the Italians had authorised the kidnapping (they were watching the guy for suspected terrorist ties), and in fact that the Italians may even have requested that the US remove some pesky suspected terrorist that they couldn't catch, it did seem just about irrefutable that the kidnapping had taken place, and that it was authorised by the US government. ----- I could see a court in Brussels ruling "insuffecient evidence". Or even ruling that the renditions were legal. But I find it hard to believe that they could conclude that it didn't happen. That never happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22leak.html?ei=5065&en=126c3f48aea48e3f&ex=1146283200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print The C.I.A. would not identify the officer, but several government officials said it was Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran intelligence analyst who until 2001 was senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, where she served under President Bill Clinton and into the Bush administration. A left-winger. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22leak.html?ei=5065&en=126c3f48aea48e3f&ex=1146283200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print "Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee." ------------------ http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/06/98061701_tpo.html BERGER APPOINTS MCCARTHY SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR INTELLIGENCE Go Bush.... Time to clean house. Get rid of the traitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 And appointed by sandy burgler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.