RSS
Using PayPal
Bush Should Polygraph Staff on Plame Outing: Dana Priest's Sources were Multiple and Were Most Likely in Europe
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Apr 25 2006, 8:46AM
Senior CIA official Mary McCarthy has denied leaking information to Dana Priest about the CIA's secret Eastern European prisons. She has argued that she did not have access to intelligence about these prisons, though seems to be admitting to unauthorized discussions with journalists.
A couple of comments. First, just for the record, many CIA officials and analysts have contacts with journalists. Heck, many journalists during the Cold War were doing the bidding of the CIA. But more importantly, the CIA frequently learns as much from journalists covering a story if they develop good mutually useful communications as analysts do on their own.
Any decent analyst or official who did not have contact with journalists, academics, trade association reps, and others would be lousy at their job in my book.
I will be attending the American Political Science Association annual conference over Labor Day weekend in Philadelphia this year -- and I always meet several CIA officials trolling the conference there. Perhaps these officials have "authorization" to be doing what they are doing -- but I have had some serious discussions about terrorist-tracking with them that could not have fallen into the "authorized bin."
One other thing. I was surprised when the news of Mary McCarthy's firing happened that so many immediately jumped to the conclusion that she was Dana Priest's source on the secret CIA prisons.
I kept my powder dry on that one and did not post or link to any of these stories because they conflicted with something I had written about Priest's work and sources some time ago:
But Dana Priest has had other major scoops as well -- perhaps the greatest recent one being the revelations about secret detention centers abroad where American authorities and/or their proxies are detaining prisoners in an "off the books" manner.Immediately, after Priest's story, Senate Republicans began attacking each other -- thinking that one or more of them had spilled classified information to Dana Priest as the revelation of such detention centers was allegedly made by Vice President Cheney at a Republican caucus meeting in the Senate. Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert actually called for an investigation of who leaked the information to Priest rather than calling for an investigation of the secret detention facilities.
TWN has spent the last several days groveling, promising baby-sitting sessions, trading information I had from some research in areas others were interested in for information on Dana Priest's work -- and it has been tough. Dana Priest is an astoundingly good investigative journalist and does not leave a large footprint.
But TWN has confirmed from multiple sources that the Senate Republican blame-fest after the Dana Priest article was even more theatrically absurd because Priest had no single source on that story. She had many, many sources in the U.S. and in Europe.
We have reached such a level of obsession with information and sources -- and have personalized and celebritized some of these sources and commentators -- that we incorrectly assume that a single person walks out with information that a reporter like Dana Priest might use. Her work deserves a Pulitzer because it is based on old-fashioned, disciplined investigative journalism that involved interviews with literally hundreds of people.
The detention center story is ripe for others to write more. There is evidence out there on these centers -- and more work can be done. But don't look for a single source; look for the dozens who will convey what has been happening and confirm.
There was no single U.S. Senator and no single CIA official who gave Priest her Pulitzer-prize winning scoop, which I thought she deserved the day the story broke.
My hunches are that her source(s), are in Europe -- not the United States. Dana Priest made two long trips through Europe and Eastern Europe these last couple of years and developed much of her material on the secret prisons there.
But fascinating that President Bush wants to polygraph for those who leaked on the CIA prisons, and those who exposed the warrantless wiretap program, but not a single member of his staff for exposing Valerie Plame Wilson's secret CIA identity.
According to some inside the intel arena, Valerie Wilson's work had a lot to do with monitoring Iran's nuclear weapons appetite and capabilities and possibly helped feed Iran nuclear technology junk that could distract and complicate Iran's weapons program efforts. If true, this is quite consistent with the Iran Chapter in Jim Risen's new book, State of War.
I'm not going to say anything more here than say that Wilson was "possibly" doing this.
But if this account of Plame-Wilson's activities is true, those who exposed Valerie Plame Wilson helped undermine American national security in much more major ways that haven't yet been disclosed.
Where are the polygraph tests for your staff, Mr. President?
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Lawrence Wilkerson: Straight Talk that America is Losing its Americanness» Next Article - Big Personnel Moves in Progressive Foreign Policy Circles
Off topic but I was wondering if steve had any comments on the latest newsweek story on the buildning of permanent bases in Iraq. It seems to confirm what many suspected from the start of the war. Iraq has been turned into an protectorate.
If the leaks are investigated, no one should be polygraphed. The polygraph is pseudoscience and has never been proven to be effective. In fact, as far as I know there is not one documented case of a spy or leaker being exposed as a result of the polygraph.
Jay -- Thanks for your note on the polygraph, something I know little about. But what I do know is that the polygraph is used extensively inside the Bureau, CIA, and DoD. It just seems odd that if the White House permits and supports the use of polygraph-dependent investigations, then his own team should be exposed given the source of the Valerie Plame leak.
To CKrantz -- I've always thought that our construction of facilities in Iraq belied an intention to stay a long time. That doesn't mean that facilities can't be abandonded...but clearly, we are pouring a lot of concrete foundations when well anchored tents might have done the trick.
Steve Clemons
It must be difficult being a reporter covering intelligence, defense or foreign policy issues. The Administration can leak parts of a story favorable to their interests, and the reporter can relay that information without recourse. But if the reporter digs deeper and reports information that does not totally support the Administration position, then that reporter and their sources can be prosecuted, even jailed. Double standard? - no doubt.
the reporters' ability to report on our governments actions is what makes us a democracy. i have always believed that the process must be transparent and fully disclosed to all. i understand the need for international policies that omit this. however, this administration seems to employ the attitude that they are above and beyond any questioning of their motives and procedures. as long as it ensures the united states is moving towards the republicans PNAC screed they see no reason to disclose any information. this is not a democracy. i think the november elections will be an excellent indicator of the peoples will vs. the neocons ability to steal the election. i doubt they will let the last 5 years of effort to a democratic controlled senate. should be intersting!
Great perspectives from two CIA veterans - - -
* Larry Johnson - "BETWEEN CONSIENCE AND UNCONSCIONABLE...There is a fundamental moral and ethical difference between someone who leaks information in order to serve the public good and someone, like George Bush, who authorizes leaks only for the purpose of saving his sorry political ass."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29176
* Ray McGovern - "MARY MCCARTHY'S CHOICE...But agency alumnae, at least those of my vintage, believe we must always give priority to the Constitution. Mary chose well and, in so doing, offers an example to emulate."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/24/mary_mccarthys_choice.php
McCarthy should get Condi Rice, who said that those secret prisons didn't exist, to testify for her. After all, she couldn't leak information about non-existing prisons, could she?
As far as those alleged perminant US camps--If the US government at one time thought it might not leave Iraq it could have set in motion a series of tasty contracts that (ahem) just could not be canciled.
Is there any way, Steve, to find out if employees of the CIA are quiting in larger numbers than usual?
They certainly have had a rough time in the past five years.
They've been blamed for "faulty" intell on Iraq.
Ms. Wilson was outed, fearful stuff if one is an agent.
Now, it's the admin's efforts to prevent information from being published.
If we lose the good people at CIA, we are in trouble.
Maude
Thanks for the reply steve. The newsweek report bothers me because it seems to be another case of having a both public and a private foreign policy with little public discussion of the options.
Retired General Batiste said that Rumsfeld had ignored "10 years" of planning.
We have been planning to attack Iraq for "10 years". Not 10 years of how to avoid attacking Iraq, but 10 years of how to attack Iraq.
Not one of the mainstream media have commented on that. And/nor sites like this one?
So who's been planning this for all that time, and why? Just the military, (maybe the Bush family - just waiting for GWB or one of the other kids of the first Bush to become president), the oil corporations? Just who? And why?
Americans are so poorly informed. And wonder why this country is not loved.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
To CKrantz -- I've always thought that our construction of facilities in Iraq belied an intention to stay a long time. That doesn't mean that facilities can't be abandonded...but clearly, we are pouring a lot of concrete foundations when well anchored tents might have done the trick.
Steve Clemons
Only if you accept the "trick" as it was presented to us. In actuality, the concrete serves the true intentions far more faithfully than a tent.
Why is it so hard for some of you to call a lie a lie? We were LIED to. Period.
I smell fear. The sickly-sweet stench of desperation surrounds this administration.
They are perfectly well aware that all their stuff is going to see the light of day - eventually.
In fact, they seem to be so acutely aware of it that the last vestiges of restraint are coming off in favour of tit-for-tats and personal vendettas at the top of the military and the intelligence bureaucracies. One of those has already blown up in Scooter Libby's face, and even evil Karl might soon be gone. What makes this bunch wanting to play with fire so much?
Soon, their paranoia is going to eat them up. This administration is about to disappear, pardon me, up its own behind.
Blow by blow, their take-no-prisoners attitude is going to boomerang.
You'll see.
There really is a double standard when it comes to polygraph "testing." It boils down to this: polygraphs are for the ruled, not the rulers. In any event, polgyraph "tests" have no scientific basis to begin with and are easily fooled through the use of simple countermeasures.
I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs and other putative lie detectors. We have a great deal of documentation available on-line, much of it contained in our e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF), which you may find interesting:
http://antipolygraph.org.nyud.net:8080/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
You're going to APSA? Are you on a panel, or just attending?
Steve -- It seems to me that Bush was well aware of plame leakers right from the start. Am I right in assuming that, instead of asking for polygraphs per se, you're forcing admin to answer to Plame-case stonewalling in general, whily trying to bypass the defense of no-comments-on-ongoing-investigation?
I blame the media (don't we all) about the lack of pressure they should use here, but while this polygraph question might put some cracks on that stonewall, I doubt its "bunker-busting" properties. That said, it's often some minor but easily digestable and presentable issue such as this that starts the ball rolling.
dahreese -- Planning for attack doesn't necessarily mean intention to attack, just as ready obituary archives in newspapers don't mean the editors are planning to kill public figures.
NEWSLASH...Journos did NOT stop working for the CIA after the cold war ended...
Scary thought, that they're more interested in plugging the leaks of information about, rather than eliminating the detention centers, wiretapping, etc. Leads one to believe that they think such places and practices are "A" OK...Fine by them. Scary.
As for permanent bases in Iraq, it was obvious this was part of the plan from the beginning. Once the US military goes into a place they rarely leave completely. There is a US military presence in how many countries in the world? (I think its more than 100.The sun never sets on the US empire?)We still have bases in Saudi Arabia from 1991, which is a sore point for many Muslims as it is their Holy Land and there hasn't been outside presence there for 1400 years.
My experience has lead me to believe that, although Americans love their troops, most people from other countries are mistrustful of soldiers, even their own, and they don't want ours staying in their land.
And Steve, good luck with the babysitting...it's a great form of birth control!
steve:
Any chance you could look into two areas that are quite disturbing: (1) the recent "revolt of the Generals" against the Pentagon civilians (specifically) Rumsfeld and (2) the ire that many in the CIA (and other intelligence organizations must be experiencing.
It seems that this Bush regime has, perhaps more than any other administration in recent memory, politicized both the military and the intelligence communities. Increasingly we are hearing many in both communities reflecting extraordinary anger and underrstandable feelings of betrayal by a White House that wants to blame its own strategic, political and policy failures on the follks who execute those failed strategies or provide the advice/facts upon which such policy choices ought to be based. See, e.g., Larry Johnson's piece today in the TPM (which is excellent) regarding his former boss.
Is it a good thing that they are finally outraged enough to speak out? To leak? I think it is. It is a bit surprising it has not happened sooner. But it also raises interesting questions. If you piss off the military leadership and the CIA careerists long enough, or worse yet, if you purge those from their ranks who disagree with you, what do we have left? Folks at the NSA who acquiesce to policies that are clearly in violation of US law? I think it is a VERY dangerous situation. Your thoughts/observations would be appreciated.
--Alan.
Steve,
I think the polygraph is favored more as a tool of intimidation than for its efficacy. I think most interrogators prefer their subjects to feel nervous, and a polygraph tends to do that.
The biggest problem with the polygraph (and any technology-based detection method) is in the false positives. Habitual liars are less likely to respond physiologically to questions than are more honest people.
Bob Park, past president of the American Physical Society and Professor (emeritus I believe) of Physics at the University of Maryland has had lots to say on the topic of polygraphs. See his website: http://www.bobpark.org/
Jay Goldfarb
Santa Cruz, CA
the polygraph machine would blow up if the did that.
Why not a "Reality" t.v. show called: "What did he know and when did he know it?"
Bush, of course, would be the first one to be hooked up to a lie detector on prime-time television. Then Cheney. Then the rest of the Bush neo-con gang.
What? No waterboarding? Ah c'mon. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And the network airing this prime-time "Reality" series could always have some doctors (preferably faith-based) standing by to assist anyone suffering organ failure or anything approaching organ failure.
Okay, okay, no waterboarding, especially during prime-time when children might be watching. We wouldn't want to scar them for life. Beyond, that is, what Bush and the Republicans have done by running up the largest budget deficits imaginable that the children will grow up to pay, and pay, and pay.
Anyway, lie detectors for everyone in the Bush cabal, on prime-time, during the May sweeps. Get out the popcorn, folks.
Dont hold your breath. I am sure Bush is getting Roberts right on that.
How about public drug tests for all politicians!
Maybe breath tests before they vote or start nuclear wars.
How else could we get to the point of thinking that "we have to start a nuclear war in the middle east to prevent one."
These are not the sentiments of a sane or sober person.
Has anyone else noticed that most of the people that are acting on their consciences are women.
Reader Comments (26) - post a comment