Talk:Mary McCarthy (CIA)

Career

It would be interesting to see this expanded. What was she doing up until the age of 39?

Well, if she's a PhD, she was in college until around 22, masters program until around 25, and PhD program until around 27-ish. That's assuming she went straight through. As for the remaining years, I have no idea. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

She has two masters, from two schools, and a PhD in history can easily take 7 years. We also don't know how long her employment was at the Swiss firm. We should probably source the biographical information and also add the JD she seemed to have gotten at night school. Links anyone? (I believe the bio bits were from a CSIS biography that's cached on Google.) ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Berger

Does anyone other than DaveThomas, who has on various occasions made clear that he's not interested in encyclopedic accuracy, think a mention to Sandy Berger's conviction should be made? I don't have any serious problems with it, as long as it does not imply that McCarthy has been charged or convicted, or that the two cases are connected. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you.

Left Wing Activist?

DaveThomas, please see trialsanderrors discussion on the topic of the label. Just because I have given money to the Republican party, it doesn't make me an activist. Further, even if she is an activist, you need to cite references to making such an assertion. Where in any of the material does it point to her being an activist? Stop reverting the changes made to the page and start some dialogue. You can definently say that she has contributed to other organizations affiliated with left wing causes but you need to put it in context. I also know that she worked under Richard Clarke, but I can't make the wild assertion that she was somehow involved with his targetting of the Bush administration. We need to let the facts speak for themselves. Based on DaveThomas's same logic, we can just start throwing around the term left and right wing to any Wikipedia bio where they have given donations to a political organization. This is a bad precedent. --User:Unreal128 17:36, 22 April 2006.

I just wanted to immortalize DaveThomas's latest modification: "As the term is used in Jack Abramoff's article it is clear McCarthy is an activist. Unlike Abramoff, McCarthy is a left wing activist." This has nothing to do with the relevance or newsworthiness of this person. MOC is in the news for leaking documents not making campaign contributions. Clearly we are outside encyclopedic territory here and well within the confines of political speech. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) PS I should note that I'm in favor of listing campaign contributions if they are put into context. So far DaveThomas has failed repeatedly to provide the context between contributions and leaks.

To add to that, I think this whole problems comes from a misinterpretation of what activism is. Activism appropiately describes Abramoff because that is what he was: a lobbyist (being a duty of activism.) Mary O. McCarthy on the other hand was an intelligence analyst. We can't imply intense partisanship (especially to deserve a left-wing activist label) unless there is material to support such claims, not just donation records. This claim implies that anyone who makes donations to partisan groups is an activist. Should I be considered a philanthropist because I have donated to poverty outreach organizations? --User:Unreal128 19:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV. Activism does not include giving money to campaigns. I disagree about Abramoff being called an activist, but his political involvement is clearly in a different ballpark than McCarthy's. Add to that the deliberate disclosure of her ZIP Code and we're in smear territory here. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

She is a "Left Wing Political Activist"??? Sounds blatantly POV. So does the soft language about Eastern European nations "hosting terrorist prisoners" when the article doesn't even mention the fact that these prisons were secret and very possibly in violation of international law. Also it suggests that they are "hosting" convicted terrorists, when in fact they are holding accused terrorists as far as I am aware. Also, it calls the existence of the prisons a "special war time agreement" when it is my understanding that it is not being called a "war time agreement" due to the fact that if it was one, the accused terrorists would be POWs not "enemy combatants." So, it seems the article manipulates, omits, and fabricates vital facts for political purposes. Joe 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no more POV used here than in the article on Jack Abramoff who directed funds to both Republicans and Democrats. McCarthy gave only to Democrats. If the standard is to allow such associations to be revealed as in the Abramhoff article then that standard must apply here as well. "Possibly in violation of International Law?" Since you apparantly need an example of what is POV just read your own text. --DaveThomas 06:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When you add little things such as Samuel Burger later himself criminally sentenced for mishandling classified information, it sounds quite bias, because you are making one side look bad by adding negative events to the article that don't partain to it. If the Jack Abramoff article was this bad, it needs revision too. Macwiki 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate disclosure of her zip code (that she gives out publicly) is a smear? Don't worry though. I suspect there will be an AfD on this soon. --Tbeatty 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure of ZIP code by itself is not a smear. But if someone adamantly tries to equate contributions to Democratic campaigns with "left wing" and "activism", someone seems to have an ax to grind. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous Jack Abramoff called himself a Republican activist he was the chair of the college Republicans, he played a leading role as a fund raiser and as an organizer before he became a lobbyist. Thats what most lobbyists are, activists who are cashing in on their connections. There is no evidence to suggest that McCarthy ever stood as a candidate, was a party official or even so much as held a sign. If she was doing that sort of thing she would have been a political apoitntee. --Gorgonzilla 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof? Abramoff directed money to both Democrats and Republicans. That hardly makes him a Republican activist yet Wikipedia's standards allow that POV description of him. OTOH, McCarthy has given only to Democrats, as such she is even more of an activist than Abramoff. --DaveThomas 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents here, I think McCarthy is less an activist and more of a patriotic whistle-blower. She found out about the existence of CIA black sites and about the practice of extraordinary rendition, which quite frankly is something the U.S. government would love for us not to know about. But the executive branch cannot, and should not be allowed to engage in such a policy without congressional oversight of some description. There's a reason we have checks and balances in the United States, and it's so that the executive branch can't arbitrarily yank people out of their own country, ship them off to an undisclosed location, torture them for three months and release them without charge because of a case of mistaken identity. Read the article on extraordinary rendition, section "Post 9/11", subsection "Examples" for an incomplete list of people that have been snatched up like that.

I can tell you that if I were a law-abiding citizen whose name happened to be slightly similar to that of a terrorist, and I got yanked off the street, tortured and humiliated for three months and then released without being charged nor getting an apology, I'd be pretty freakin' pissed. Just how low are we willing to go to maintain an illusion of freedom in this country?

So if you ask me, the American people have a right to know about these things, and McCarthy absolutely did the right thing by leaking this information, whether it was the lawful thing to do or not. The fact that she's a supporter of the Democratic Party is inconsequential, though I'm sure the Republicans would love to keep trying to hammer that fact in to make it a political issue and not a human-rights issue. ekedolphin 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The American people did know through their elected representative. Are you arguing that the Government should have no classified information? No Spies? When Congress learned about the leak they wanted to know who leaked it, not the details of the program because they already knew. She is not a "whistleblower." We have "whistleblower" laws that recognize what is whistleblowing and what is felony crime of disclosing classified information. If she wanted to just "whistleblow", she could have contacted her Democrat congressperson and arranged a classified briefing. She used to be Special Assistant to Clinton so she should have known how to do this. Instead she chose to "leak" it in an illegal way. With all the options she had available, she chose the one that would cause the most political damage to the administration. One has to wonder why. --Tbeatty 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is patently wrong to confuse the legal doctrine of whistleblowing with the common definition of whistleblowing. Apart from the multitude of cases of whistleblowing which are not put to a legal test, we would have to exclude everybody who blew a whistle before whistleblowing laws were enacted or who is a citizen of a country where no such laws exist. It is especially problematic in governmental whistleblowing, where the government is both judge and defendant. The common definition of whistleblowing is to pass organizational information about misconduct on to outsiders. Also the idea that the right to have classified information is a shield against whistleblowing is nonsense. Similarly companies could and often do claim that whistleblowers violate trade secrets or confidentiality agreements. About the potential self-interest, this is also not an excluding criterion. Important is the act, not the motive. ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So I guess, by your definition, Scooter Libby is a whistleblower because he uncovered wrongdoing at the CIA by disclsoing the inappropriate relationship between CIA operative Plame and Joe Wilson? I think not. There are accepted avenues for disclosure. You can call her a whistleblower, but don't be upset if others call her a traitor for the same action. The important thing is not the act, it's the damage her actions caused. She breached the trust that policy makers put in the hands of executaive branch employees. She can claim anything she wants, if she betrayed her oath for political gain, she should go to jail. --Tbeatty 06:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

by your definition, Scooter Libby is a whistleblower - To my knowledge he didn't disclose wrongdoing, unless Plame being an operative falls under wrongdoing. don't be upset if others call her a traitor for the same action. - Where did I say I was? the damage her actions caused - to U.S. relationships with its allies? So is it the disclosure that caused the damage or the initial act? ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what he/she means is that Plame failed the government. Clearly, Plame should have murdered her husband since he was opposed to the Bush administrations lies which is illegal from what I can gather. I guess ideally she probably she have been executed according to Tbeatty. At least this is what I assume based on comments I've read Nil Einne 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Donations

I don't get it. We might as well have:

Other

McCarthy has made donations to the following organizations:

• Friends of John Kerry, Inc.—gave $2000 on March 14, 2004

• Ohio Democratic Party—gave $5000 on October 15, 2004

McCarthy likes the following things:

• Cute puppy dogs—played with her next door neighbor's Spaniel on April 17, 2002

• Lasagna—had dinner at Luigi's last Friday

Could this be written so it's relevant to the article?

- Aaronwinborn 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant in that she was "Special Assistant to the President", yet donated money to organisations against the President. She worked for and with the President, but donated to his opponents. It could link in with the fact that the information being leaked was damaging to the Bush administration? I could be wrong, however. (Inquisition 15:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

It's relevant in the sense that she apparently committed an overtly political act (i.e. to help the opponents of or discredit the administration). Her political affiliation is very relevant in that sense. --Tbeatty 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this as of now. In a different POV her actions can be seen as a form of whistleblowing, i.e. the publicizing of a covert (illegal or unethical) act of an organization by an insider. In this case her political affiliation would be irrelevant. Until we have sourced evidence on her motivation we should refrain from drawing conclusions for the readers. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"I think it's relevant in that she was "Special Assistant to the President", yet donated money to organisations against the President. She worked for and with the President, but donated to his opponents." Ah no, she was in the CIA, merely assigned to the President, working for the USA not the President. To any ones knowledge does the CIA, Secret Service, etc have any sort of rules banning financial contributions to one candidate while assigned to another? If not then while it might look a little unusual I can't see anything that was particularly wrong. - LamontCranston 09:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that she was appointed Special Assistant to Clinton, not Bush, and that she left that position in July 2001, i.e. half a year after Bush took over, and that the donations to the Democrats happened in 2004, three years later. Thomas Blomberg 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I (who am not the person writing in the paragraph just above this) put "allegedly" before "terrorist prisoners." It's only fair I think. 72.224.187.170 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. allegedly is generally considered weasel words. Terrorist can be POV. So the easiest thing is to say prisoners captured in the "War on Terror". The reader can decide who and what they are.--Tbeatty 16:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I summarized the campaign contributions in one external link since all listed contributions were easily accessible via that link. All other external links were redundant and are still in the text. This format should allow readers to draw their own conclusions about political affiliation. I also changed the formatting of the "Other" heading from Aaronwinborn's quote above because Wikipedia interpreted it as a Talk site section heading rather than a quotation. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Donations are not only relevant information but important to judgements about her character. Otherwise readers may be left to wonder about her motives, and considering that her actions hurt the war effort, partisanship is a lesser evil than some of the alternatives.

-- Randy2063 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess, then, it is also relevant to note that X person signed X petition and that proves their communist tendencies? Her character is determined by which political party she tends to agree with in a certain campaign? That sounds pretty loco to me, ese. It tells nothing of her "character" it only tells us that she strongly preferred Kerry to Bush in 2004 and some Democratic candidates in Ohio. Thats it. It has nothing to do with "character." Either way, as if her polytricks were relevant in a country where Democrip/Rebloodlican is essentially the same thing, it is presented in a manner that is as if to say "Here is this lady that did "significant damage" to America's War On Terror, she is a Democrat!" Furthermore, the quote about "significant damage" is pretty one-sided when you could easily find about 500 other quotes that commend her instead of condemn her. Joe 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that reports are that, as an official in the Clinton administration, she often found herself in conflic with some of that administration's policies as well. In particular, she argued against the bombing of the al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 and even wrote an official letter of dissent to Clinton. I think it may be safe to say that she is not "political" so much as she just has a heavy conscience on some issues. Joe 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

She flipped, Joe. The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs. But I agree. Her $10,000 in political donations in such a short period of time, on a government salary, with no previous history of making such sizable donations, means nothing. Evensong 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also can't help but wonder what they would be saying if during her time assigned to the Clinton administration she contributed to Republican presidential candidates and some Republican candidates in Ohio, always interesting to consider the response when the shoe is on the other foot. - LamontCranston 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

$10,000!? As far as I can tell, it was $7,500 in 2004 and $200 in 2002. Considering her position, it was probably not a very significant sum for her. US government salaries for people at her level are not insignificant. Thomas Blomberg 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Evensong... You'll have to be more explicit. I mean on your facts not on your sarcasm. Are you saying that it means nothing that she was vehemently against the al-Shifa bombing when it went down? I mean, regardless of what she or Richard Clarke said later, the point is that she had a crisis of conscience over it when it happened. Not that she is right. Whether she was right is irrelevant in proving that she is a willing dissenter. Anyhow, I still submit that whether she has Democrip or Rebloodlican tendencies is irrelevant UNLESS you can tie it in to a motive for the leak (which shouldn't be hard to do) instead of just quoting campaign donatation statistics. Also, it should be done without such an inherent bias. Seriously, that whole "significantly damaged" diatribe is pretty heavy... Some people would call her a hero, so... Just don't make it sound like "She is against America's Patriotic War on Terror and also a Democrat." That is all I'm really asking. Joe 07:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that the facts show that her resolute conscience you describe is not so resolute. Evensong 13:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But I never said that her conscience was resolute, I said it was heavy. Just because she feels strongly on certain issues doesn't mean she can't change her mind. Joe 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Black Sites

The link to this article on the main page states that:

"The CIA fires a high ranking analyst, reportedly Mary O. McCarthy, for disclosing the existence of CIA-operated black sites"

However, there is no reference to these "black sites" on this page. Someone care to add the details? Meighan 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pure speculation. It's interesting that it qualifies who was fired with "reportedly" but absolute fact that it was "CIA-operated black sites". It's the exact opposite of the emphasis in real news articles. It sounds to me like this is a POV attempt to justify the leak instead of reporting the news.--Tbeatty 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

umm, whats speculation. The black sites are, its just wheter or not thats the reason she was fired. But it should be mentioned that it has been put forth that the info was about the Black Sites. 12.220.94.199 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the main page sentence? It says unequivocally that was the reason she was fired. Seems pretty irresponsible for an encyclopedia. This article is about McCarthy, not whether black sites exist or not. And an article that Priest wrote is about the Black Sites. That has not been linked by either McCarthy, Priest or the CIA to McCarthy. --Tbeatty 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That would actually be my fault then. "Reportedly" was done by someone else, I put in the mention about black sites. We need to somehow inform the user about what kind of information was leaked by her. How would you guys term it? --Unreal128 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A CIA Analyst, later identified as Mary O. McCarthy was dismissed for releasing classified material to persons unauthorized to receive the material.--Tbeatty 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree but isn't there also a pretty solid link between her and Dana Priest as far as the leaking goes? If this is true, then I think it would be needed to mention the type of information leaked and possible link to McCarthy regarding black sites. --Unreal128 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think any of that is confirmed. The connection to Dana Priest is taht it was her article that launched the investigation. I don't know that Priest is the only person that she leaked. It is not clear that she is the only person that leaked or that her leak was the black sites. It has not been released what McCarthy confessed to and Priest has not said who her source or sources are.--Tbeatty 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As an "Eastern European", however East-Central European would be a better term, I find a bit disharmonic, that the article mentions the agreement between such countries and the USA after 9/11 according to black sites. However, on the black sites page, it is stated, that every country denied it, the alleged connection exists only in case of Poland and Romania. As an act of good will toward the editors of the article, please consider the situation of a post-communist country, anyone can imagine, that an agreement with the USA would be cannon fodder for every opposition, especially in election times, that it exists, therefore in my suggestion it should be noted, which countries have not supported it (Shinichi1977 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

Polygraph

Resolved

The NY Times article dated April 23 said her polygraph 'indicated the possibility of deception', not that she 'failed a polygraph' as stated in the Wikipedia article. --Anchoress 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I made your suggested change.Jeff Fenstermacher 04:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The change is fine, both mean the same thing. The Washington Post reported she "failed more than one polygraph test." [1]RonCram 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would put "failed" back in and maybe relegate the more precise terminology to a footnote. ~ trialsanderrors 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't McCarthy's leaks be put into historical context?

McCarthy did this during a time in which many CIA officials were (are?) in open warfare against the Bush Administration. I see the leak as related to the actions of Joseph C. Wilson, Valerie Plame, Michael Scheuer, Paul R. Pillar and Richard A. Clarke. Former Senator Zell Miller has called for a new law (the Plame Rule) that would prevent CIA officials from using their spouses to attack the president the way Valerie Plame did.[2] George Tenet allowed Michael Scheuer (while he still worked for the CIA) to publish a book critical of President Bush in an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 election. The fact Tenet approved the book's publication is what got Tenet fired. Scheuer also wrote a book in 2002 that talked about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda but later, after the invasion of Iraq, went on television talk shows to say no evidence existed of the relationship. (Note: You may have to read the Scheuer Talk page for more information on this as one wikipedia editor has been in a censorship mode to prevent readers from this fact). Richard Clarke is guilty of a similar change in viewpoint on the topic of Saddam and al-Qaeda. Paul Pillar leaked a National Intelligence Estimate that he believed supported Pillar's chosen policy path in an effort to criticize President Bush.[3] Newspaper articles and op-ed pieces have been written about the CIA's open hostilities to the Bush Administration and how CIA officials are attempting to control foreign policy through illegal and unethical means. [4] Shouldn't this article on McCarthy reflect that reality? RonCram 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This article, like others on Wikipedia, should reflect reality as portrayed by authoritative sources. It should not reflect various conspiracy theories that individual Wikipedia editors find compelling.--csloat 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased

>She reportedly was fired on April 21, 2006, for illegally leaking classified information to The Washington Post regarding black sites and other classified topics.

This is biasedly worded. Black sites themselves are illegal under international law and conventions. Treaties that have been signed and ratified clearly supercede national legislations, this is the most basic principle of international law. Therefore she was NOT illegally leaking the information because the information itself was evidence of a crime under international legislation that supercedes US federal and state laws.

She was legally disclosing information about crimes, in fact she was obliged to disclose the information under international law, else she could be convicted of assisting in crimes against humanity in an international criminal court. Claiming to follow orders is no excuse for crimes as has been clearly established in the Nurenberg. If you are in CIA and know of other outrages against e.g. Geneva and Hague you too should come forward so that you gain future immunity from the UN tribunals. 195.70.32.136 11:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Prisons and policies of rendition are clearly 'legal under International Law. --DaveThomas 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, exactly what she leaked is not known by the public at this time. The Washington Post reported that she "failed more than one polygraph" test, so it quite possible they were asking her about different leaks. The language used by officials speaking on background seems to indicate the same thing. These people are saying the leaks adversely affected U.S. national security and the investigation is not over with this firing. MSNBC is reporting that McCarthy had over 12 unauthorized contacts with Priest and that "information about other subjects... may have been leaked as well." [5] So the firing is not about a single leak but multiple leaks. McCarthy seems to be acting on purely partisan political grounds in an effort to damage President Bush, but in doing so she has also damaged national security.RonCram 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's quick followup. The NY Times reported, "Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from a pattern of conduct and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post." [6] RonCram 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any ruling by an authoritative body that a treaty was violated. Is McCarthy the arbiter of treaty violations such that she can unilaterally decide what is or isn't illegal? As I recall, that authority remains with the president. I don't remember her being on the Presidential ballot. --Tbeatty 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also no ruling by an authorative body that what McCarthy was doing is illegal. If we employ this standard the word has to be stricken. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Though her actions, or at least what we believe her actions were, are (arguably) illegal under american law, nobody has yet ruled on the matter. Moreover, it is not yet known precisely what she did, so arguments for or against are pointless. Perhaps you could put a footnote saying that she has not been even charged with anything.--CSTAR 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the text, under Leak Scandal. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My language was that she was fired for disclosing classified information to persons not authorized to receive it. I don't think there is any reason to speculate whether it was legal or illegal. I object to the premise that was put forward that this was unquestionably legal for the reasons that were given. --Tbeatty 06:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is reason because the word was inserted into the intro paragraph, as copied above. I disagree with the poster who claims it was not illegal, but that does not justify the insertion of "illegal" into the language. As I pointed out in one of my edits, the firing offense was leaking. Legality or illegality has to be determined by a court of law, not the CIA. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy on reversions

Please note that this change [7] is a reversion. Making a minor change to bypass the 3RR doesn't work. If you are unhappy with this policy then please submit it to an RfC--CSTAR 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

DaveThomas had 4 reverts yesterday, coming off a 12h block for 3RR violation (see my Talk page on it). I have no idea how to report those, but maybe someone else wants to. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but I generally prefer to convince people that such behavior gets them nothing, rather than block them. I mean, we don't have to agree on the politics to at least get the facts straight. Other admins will be less tolerant. --CSTAR 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be more convinced if DT himself was less quick on the trigger. ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd just like some edit summaries that tell me what exact he is doing. --waffle iron ^talk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the ones from yesterday: 1. reinserted the Chapter 115 (Treason) link, 2. reinserted the "left-wing activist" language, 3. re-removed the whistleblower categorization, 4. reinserted the "later criminally sentenced" wrt Sandy Berger. If needed I can dig up the time stamps. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, no not necessary. Look at the cat and mouse game on the redirect at Mary McCarthy. User:DaveThomas if you are upset by something why don't you try to constructively engage in editing the article by adhering to the NPOV rules? In this case, they're not that complicated, because no one has even been charged with anything. The facts are meager and are reported in the press. --CSTAR 05:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he reads this site. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of the news reports

Apparently news reporters have gotten the story wrong. The CIA never officially claimed MOM (sorry, her initials are just too inviting) had leaked information on secret prisons. Because MOM had contact with reporter Dana Priest, it seems news reporters and anonymous CIA officials were speculating the leak had to do with the story by Priest about secret prisons in Europe. But recent comments by MOM's attorney and now the CIA say that simply is not true.

• "Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters." [8]

So that makes several quotes in the article appear to be misleading, including the last portion of this one:

• The New York Times reported, "Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from "a pattern of conduct" and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post."

One quote I believe we can trust is this one:

• CIA spokeswomen Michele Neff is quoted as saying "This CIA officer acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly shared classified intelligence, including operational information."

The phrase "including operational information" is a technical term hinting that a criminal prosecution may follow. I am not claiming they will prosecute, but leaking "operational information" is a crime. At the very least, this arrest and official comments are a message to other CIA officials not to leak "operational information."

This clarification of the facts (that MOM did not disclose information about secret prisons) also calls into question the relevance of the comments by Mr. Vivas. I do not see how MOM can be praised for something she did not do.

Someone needs to work on a rewrite and address the fact the initial news stories were wrong. I don't have the time. RonCram 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on Black Sites. I agree with you (actually agreed with you before you wrote it or the MSM figured it out.). --Tbeatty 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the more recent news establish factual incorrectness. If we were to follow the lawyers comments, she did nothing wrong. So far we have three interpretations of facts proffered by different parties: 1. leak, black sites related, 2. leak, not black sites related, 3. no leak (correction: no leak of classified info). I don't think it is our job to pick the ones we like the most, but make sure the viewpoints are properly attributed and put in relation to each other. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, RonCram, I'm pretty unhappy with the reordering of the Leak scandal section. It breaks up the flow of 1. Factual interpretations, 2. Critical responses and opinions, and leaves the "mixed responses" abstract dangling in mid-air. If you want to break it up, Adding a section on "Responses" would do the trick better. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Trialsanderrors, the factual inaccuracy of the earlier reports is clear in the Washington Post article in my first link above. Here it is again:

• "Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters." [9]

The CIA never officially said she leaked information about these alleged sites. According to one report, European countries have said they do not exist. Because MOM had contact with Priest, reporters and even some in the CIA jumped to the conclusion the leaks had to do with these sites. The CIA has said that is not true. I think the article should make that clear. RonCram 15:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Journalist wins Prize

One of the more interesting aspects of the story as I heard it reported on the radio was that one of the journalists that formed the other side of the leak won a Pulitzer prize. I wonder if it would be reasonable to add that somewhere within the article. It's an interesting and related factiod. KellyCoinGuy 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Added. ~ trialsanderrors 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I removed the "Accusations/Denials" organizational structure because it is an unnecessary adversarial spin here. No charges have been filed. No direct accusations have been made. The CIA has acknowledged officially only that an officer was fired for having acknowledged talking about classified information to a reporter. Charges are not likely to be filed. In particular, nobody has claimed that she violated the section of Title 18 that prohibits some leaks of classified information. I believe the Accusations organizational structure is inferior in every way. Let's just indicate what has occurred or been reported.--csloat 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think it creates an adversarial spin remove the headers. You actually left the Titel 18 reference in (old footnote thanks to DT). The offical CIA language is "knowingly shared classified intelligence, including operational information", not "talking about". The intro summary as it is now (with the "CIA reiterates" part and the "not officially identified" qualifier) is now wordy and contains redundant information. As per her lawyer it is not disputed that MOM is the target. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "reiteration" is what was quoted in the version prior to your changes. I am not wedded to having the "not officially identified" in the intro; I just took it out. If we can agree that the adversarial headings are inappropriate, let's keep them out. In the body of the article I removed stuff that looked redundant to me in terms of being directly quoted twice; if this is incorrect my apologies.--csloat 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not inconceivable that there were still things that were quoted twice, the whole Leak section is becoming unwieldy, which is why I tried to sort quotes by context and provide introductory abstracts. The headers were an afterthought to split the section into smaller subsections. I don't mind if you take them out or replace them. But I'm not happy at all that you removed all the other bigger and smaller edits, seemingly without careful reading. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, my apologies if this occurred -- can you point to the specific edit you think I should not have changed? (Or simply put it back in). I did look it over carefully before editing but perhaps not carefully enough.--csloat 09:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To me this doesn't look like editing rather than you simply took all my changes from 22:45-23:22 out and reverted back to your own 22:38 version. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I went over each of your changes and found them to be inappropriate; hence I reverted to the earlier version. But I apologize for the third time if I missed something in this process, and I again invite you to restore anything you felt was inappropriately deleted. I really had the most objection to the "Accusations/Denials" framing, but I found the other stuff redundant and/or original research so I reverted it.--csloat 09:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The point which you don't seem to understand is that you essentially revert all or most of others' contributions and then put the onus on them to reestablish their contributions in the hope that they might pass your muster next time. You're on roughly your fifth or sixth revert today. ~ trialsanderrors 10:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's false, of course. I try to be pretty careful about the 3RR. The onus is on those who contribute to establish the reasons for their contribution, so it is not me "putting" it on them. If you make changes, you should expect to at least satisfy a burden of proof. Again, my apologies if you took offense at my changes; none was intended.-csloat 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Two wholesale Rv of my entry, at least two partial Rv's of DT's depending on how you count them, not including today's activities. It also took you a whooping 2 minutes to revert my entry, so your claims of careful reading is unsupported by the evidence. It also pretty ironic that you expect me to provide burden of proof but yourself retain the right to revert whenever you see fit. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith... I apologize again for any consternation I caused you. The "whopping two minutes" was between your last edit and mine -- I had actually been editing the page for about 15 minutes but kept running into the "Edit Conflict" page as you were still editing. I'll try not to be so quick on the trigger next time, especially when editing is in progress. As for the burden of proof, I expect that whoever introduces a change to the article has a burden of proof, usually satisfied by comments in the edit summary. I tried to respond to those comments when I reverted but you are correct that a longer explanation in talk would have been more appropriate.

Now, this is I believe the fifth time I am apologizing for this. Can we move on?--csloat 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnote format

Could I ask you to use the footnot format instead of direct references. These have numerous advanrages. For instance, you can paraphrase and give the direct quote in the footnote, give part of the quote in the article, the rest in the footnote etc. --CSTAR 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

FOX News video report

Contrary to the claim by McCarthy's lawyer that she never confessed, FOX News is reporting the CIA is reiterating the claim that McCarthy confessed to leaking classified information. The video is available on www.foxnews.com. Unfortunately, FOX uses a javascript method that makes it difficult to link to. If anyone knows how, can you please set a link on the page to the FOX News video report? RonCram 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the link. I'm sure it will appear in print soon if the report is indeed true (Note: I believe you about the report, it's just that who the principals are is often not clear in a TV broadcast. I prefer the written word). This is still a very fluid story, though, and I think the only sane thing to say at this point is that "it is a very fluid story".--CSTAR 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The video on FOX is readily available under the "Politics" section, but when I copy the shortcut I get a javascript that will not work as a link. Someone has tried to link to the story and only linked to the jpg image, so I removed that. However, I was able to find a NY Times story that reiterates the CIA's position that she did confess - although the CIA is not saying she confessed (or is even thought to have been the source for) the secret prisons story. RonCram 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A big "Thanks!" to whoever took the time to find a way to link to the FOX video clip. The clip is very informative. RonCram 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted (and restored) sentence

Re: CS recent edit. The sentence is not properly sourced..By that I mean, with the original source. I have no objection to your putting the quote in, but please make the effort and find the original Newsday reference, with title, date and author. Thanks.--CSTAR 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The original source is no longer online. I will get it off lexis/nexis and add that information. But it is easily verified, since it is also quoted in a number of other sources. Anyway, I'll add that info shortly.--csloat 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Title 18

I (gasp) actually agree with DT that the Title 18 link is relevant. Even if there is no formal charge it becomes relevant in the context of opinion quotes that want to see her prosecuted: "I'm absolutely shocked that this woman is not sitting in jail right now awaiting trial". It is encyclopedic to give the readers the tools to judge those claims themselves. Please discuss here instead of playing Rv/Rm cat and mouse games. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point trialsanderrors, I agree the reference is not unreasonable, but I don't think it is appropriate to have lines in the text like the one I originally deleted about leaking being a federal crime under title 18, at least until such connections are made by authoritative sources.--csloat 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well sharing federal intelligence is a federal crime, and since the exact words have been used by CIA spokespersons this might also have libel implications. We should make clear that the CIA alleges two different things, which have different legal implcations, and that the lawyer takes different positions on those. It is better to put the link into context than just have it dangle in the references, but it should be followed with a qualifier that no charges are pending/quote that charges are unlikely, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this as long as an authoritative source is cited as the link between title 18 and McCarthy. Otherwise it is WP:NOR. And of course that section of Title 18 does not outlaw all such leaks.--csloat 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your criterion? Someone saying she should be sued for Title 18 or is sued for leaking class info enough? ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If nobody else brings up Title 18 (or whatever other law), it is not up to wikipedia editors to do it. That is not my criterion; it is Wikipedia's, as I understand it.--csloat 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I know NOR. That wasn't my question. The official title of § 798 is "Disclosure of classified information". So do you think NOR applies until some public figure actually mentions "§ 798"? In any case, I'll leave it up to you to enforce it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to play the enforcer, but I don't see the point of adding this if it is something that no authoritative source has seen fit to mention. Certainly we can wait for newspapers or scholars to mention it before putting it into an encyclopedia? I am sure the meaning of NOR is debatable, but I don't think it's that unclear in this case. If this is really that relevant, why aren't news commentators or pundits mentioning it?--csloat 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable

The people who sacked her are the ones who make people hate America enough to die for the chance to kill an American. They should all be locked up as traitors, but so many Americans are just too insular to get it. 62.31.55.223 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss the content of the article. You are entitled to your opinions about the events, but this isn't the place to express opinions. It would be encouraging if we can get people who obviously disagree on the politics, to at least agree on facts.--CSTAR 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to DT. Could you please use less incendiary vocabulary? You may have a point about excluding blogs (see note above) but you could please tone down your language? What may be crap to you may not be to other contributors. For better or for worse you have to work with them. Thanks.--CSTAR 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsday article

Companies: Central Intelligence Agency (NAICS: 928110, 928120 )

Author(s): KNUT ROYCE. WASHINGTON BUREAU

Section: NEWS

Publication title: Newsday. (Combined editions). Long Island, N.Y.: Nov 14, 2004. pg. A.06

Source type: Newspaper

ProQuest document ID: 735774481

Text Word Count 667

Document URL: :http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=735774481&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=24448&RQT=309&VName=PQD

--CSTAR 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to second CSTAR's comment regarding dead links. If an article link is dead, look for another copy. If you doubt an article exists because the link is dead, look for quotes from it online, or visit a library and look it up. Wikipedia may be an online project, but it does not refer exclusively to the online world.--csloat 02:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Error in the Intro

At this point in time, the Intro reads "However, the CIA has not yet officially confirmed McCarthy as the dismissed employee." I believe this is an error because of the NY Times piece that reads:

WASHINGTON, April 25 — The Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday defended the firing of Mary O. McCarthy, the veteran officer who was dismissed last week, and challenged her lawyer's statements that Ms. McCarthy never provided classified information to the news media.

But intelligence officials would not say whether they believed that Ms. McCarthy had been a source for a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles in The Washington Post about secret C.I.A. detention centers abroad. Media accounts have linked Ms. McCarthy's firing to the articles, but the C.I.A. has never explicitly drawn such a connection.[10]

I rewrote the Intro to clarify the fact the CIA has confirmed that McCarthy is the fired official and to clarify that the CIA is not accusing McCarthy of leaking information on the secret prison story. Unfortunately someone has reverted my Intro and included this incorrect line that the CIA has not confirmed McCarthy as the fired official. This is a fluid story. Perhaps something has come out that I am not aware of. But this appears to me to be a sloppy edit by someone who did not bother to read the links in the reference section.

Can we please come to agreement on this issue? RonCram 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought that as a matter of policy (privacy protection) the CIA wouldn't officially reveal any information about the dismissed person. Until I see an official communiqué (or an official from the CIA speaking on the record), that Ms McCarthy is the dismissed individual, I think it should sdtay the way it was. What the NY Times said is consistent with this interpretation, I think.--04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Note further down in the article

A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."

That anonymous reference suggests to me that the CIA has not officially confirmed who the dismissed official is.--CSTAR 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. MOM's attorney admits she is the fired official. The attorney denied MOM leaked or that MOM confessed. The CIA responded to the statements made by MOM's attorney reiterating that she did confess. There is truly no question regarding the identity of the fired official. Also, according to a FOX News report, the case has been referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. It is not known if the Justice Department will choose to prosecute or not but this is the first time I have heard the case was referred. RonCram 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is no doubt that she is the fired official. The question is whether the CIA has officially said that she is the fired official. These are two different things, I believe. Perhaps the intro should be more clear about this: Though the CIA has not officially said she is the dismissed employee, there is no doubt she is the fired official (or some such thing). In other words, no one should expect that someone else will indeed be announced to be the fired official.--CSTAR 05:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue has been moved from "disputed" to "tacitly acknowledged" after the lawyer's statements I would remove it from the intro line (along with the CIA reiteration which doesn't add anything new) and make a note in the text that the CIA is prohibited by law from naming the dismissed employee. ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR and Trials, I agree that is reasonable. I haven't reread the article just yet but feel it is important to include the CIA's reaffirmation that she did confess whereever the lawyer's denial is placed. If the Intro is better off without it, that is fine by me. RonCram 13:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)