Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Mary McCarthy's Tough Choice

By Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com. Posted April 25, 2006.


With officials refusing to fulfill their oversight duties, the CIA officer was likely forced to choose between a silence she would regret and being punished for speaking out.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ray McGovern

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As a 27-year-veteran of the CIA, I have one overwhelming reaction to the news that senior intelligence analyst Mary McCarthy has been fired for leaking information to the press on CIA's network of secret prisons abroad: She must have seen no alternative to stop the abuses.

It appears that McCarthy was one of the sources upon which Washington Post reporter Dana Priest relied for the prison scoop that won her a Pulitzer. The Post quoted an unnamed "former senior intelligence official" yesterday saying he thought a majority of CIA officers would probably agree with the firing of McCarthy. "A small number might support her, but the ethic of the business is not to leak," said the former official, adding that one should stay within official grievance channels.

That's what my colleague, CIA analyst Sam Adams, did 40 years ago--and came to rue the day. Through painstaking research, Adams discovered that Gen. William Westmoreland's staff in Saigon had been ordered to keep Communist force figures artificially low--about half the actual strength--in order to project a picture of progress. When the countrywide offensive at Tet in early 1968 gave the lie to Westmoreland's figures and vindicated Adams, Sam tried manfully to hold the culprits accountable by going to the CIA's and the Pentagon's inspectors general. He got the proverbial run-around, and some 30,000 additional U.S. troops and a million more Vietnamese fell before the war was over six years later. Adams was never able to shake his nagging remorse at the thought that he might have helped prevent further carnage, had he gone out of "official channels" and briefed his findings to the then-free mainstream press. He died at 55 when his heart gave out.

The tragedy of Sam Adams is well known, even to those, like Mary McCarthy, who joined the CIA many years after Sam left. From his present perch, I relish the thought that he is pleased that Mary may have learned a valuable lesson from the frustration he encountered by "staying within official grievance channels."

Like Sam, Mary McCarthy was an independent thinker, which she proved during her tenure as senior director for intelligence programs at the White House from 1998 to 2001. There she achieved some notoriety for the personal letter she sent President Bill Clinton, criticizing the flimsiness of the "intelligence" that led to the cruise missile strike on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant that some suggested might be producing chemical warfare agent. She was correct, but then-CIA Director George Tenet vouched for the "evidence;" testosterone won the day; and they blew the place up.

Those paying attention to the issue of torture by the CIA and the Army will recall the tortured memorandum of January 25, 2002, authored by David Addington (then counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and now Cheney's chief of staff) and signed by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. That memo argued that "Geneva 's strict limitations on questioning enemy prisoners" were "obsolete" in the new war-on-terror paradigm. Still, Addington/Gonzales felt compelled to remind the president that U.S.criminal code--specifically the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441), with its draconian penalties (including death)--could come into play.

That statute pins the "war crime" label on any grave breach of Geneva, like "outrages against personal dignity," regardless of whether the detainee qualifies as a prisoner of war. Addington and Gonzales warned the president of the danger that he could be prosecuted under that law by a future independent counsel, but reassured him that there is a "reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution." That was good enough for President George W. Bush, who on Feb. 7, 2002, signed a memorandum saying that detainees should be treated humanely, "as appropriate and consistent with military necessity." And that is the loophole through which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld drove a Mack truck.

That infamous memorandum of Jan. 25 was leaked to Newsweek, which published it and others like it in May 2004. The reasoning was greeted with widespread scorn by the U.S. legal profession and in August 2004 roundly condemned by the American Bar Association, 12 former federal judges, former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, former FBI Director William Sessions and many others. The ABA formally condemned the administration's treatment of detainees and called upon it to "comply fully" with the U.S. Constitution and intern ational laws and conventions ratified by the U.S. that outlaw torture. It was that same year, 2004, when the torture of prisoners was depicted in the leaked photos from Abu Ghraib, that Mary McCarthy returned to the CIA from a sabbatical that followed her stint at the White House.


Digg!

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I think
Posted by: popsicle67 on Apr 25, 2006 1:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That if your loyalty is divided between the constitution and your oath to keep your job you need to examine what is so wrong about the job that it contradicts the constitution

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

heros and not
Posted by: rsaxto on Apr 25, 2006 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ray McGovern and Mary McCarthy are both heroes and the current white house people are simply scum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will Mary McCarthy Be Prosecuted?
Posted by: markusmark on Apr 25, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if she is, who will financially support her defense. I know I will. What about you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are now hearing
Posted by: dainin on Apr 25, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...from the greatest heroes of our time.

Thank you Ray and Mary!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Thanks, Dear Ray McGovern
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Apr 25, 2006 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Ray McGovern . . .

What a great reflective missive! The other day Daniel Shorr also offered insight into what might be altruism from this Central Intelligence agent. I would like to offer my own treatise and invite you to share your thoughts on it.

In my work, I offer this possibility. The term “Civil Disobedience” is a misnomer and too closely tied to the Thoreau stance of less government, rather than the idea of actively participating in what is “US,” we the people of the United Sates. We are the government, just as the forefathers declared. The government is of, by, and for us. We must actively attend to it. Everyday people need to participate and when they see the unprincipled ruling, they must make this known. I among others that are am thanking Mary McCarthy.

For your review . . .
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, THOREAU, ANTI-IRAQ WAR TAX RESISTERS, MARY MCCARTHY ©

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull
Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Was she the source?
Posted by: richards1052 on Apr 25, 2006 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Mr McGovern makes a few too many assumptions about Ms. McCarthy being the source of the leak. After all, in today's NY TImes her lawyer specifically denies that she was. Second, the only word we have that she IS the source is from the mendacious Porter Goss at the CIA. How must trust & faith do we have in anything those clowns tell us?

Of course, Dana Priest could end this confusion by telling us whether or not the feds have the right 'man' or not. Though that might make another unfortunate slob have to suffer as McCarthy has.

I say even if McCarthy IS the source she's to be commended for her bravery & not singled out for opprobrium. My devoutest wish is for the Justice Dept. to try her for leaking. Undoubtedly, they'd lose the case as they have almost every other terror/natl. security-related case they've brought to trial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCarthy is an American Partiot
Posted by: Ray on Apr 25, 2006 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
against fascism. Too bad we don't have more leaders with similar courage, Constitutional and Human Rights strength of character.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These are the secrets that should be told
Posted by: mim on Apr 29, 2006 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the story is shaping up as I think it is shaping up, Daniel Ellsberg will be proud.

But I hope we end up with another Daniel Ellsberg, not another Mark Felt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Praise for Ray
Posted by: drsteevo on May 4, 2006 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. McGovern, I just saw your questioning of Secretary Rumsfeld on NBC news. While their story lacked depth, and missed the point, at least it got exposure for such questions. This was the only way I figured I might be able to tell you thanks for asking those questions. You have my gratitude and admiration. Don't let the 32%'ers get you down!

Thank you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]