Friday, April 21, 2006
1.) From the NYT, courtesy of Zemblan patriot M.F.:
The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career official who disclosed classified information to the Washington Post for its Pulitzer Prize-winning stories about the agency's secret prison network for high-ranking terror suspects, the agency announced today.2.) From CBS News, via our esteemed colleague Steve Soto of The Left Coaster:
The identity of the leaker was not immediately disclosed, but several officials said they believed it was a veteran intelligence officer. The dismissal followed a long internal inquiry at the agency and was accompanied by a notification to the Justice Department.
But instead of asking for an immediate criminal inquiry, the C.I.A. asked to retain jurisdiction over the ongoing inquiry into the matter. Even so, government officials said it was possible, even likely, that the investigation could lead to criminal charges against the leaker.
The officer's departure sent another powerful jolt of apprehension through the C.I.A., battered in recent years for faulty prewar reporting in Iraq, waves of senior-echelon departures following the appointment of Porter J. Goss as director and the diminished standing of the agency now that the nation's intelligence operations have been reorganized.
A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.SIDEBAR: According to Eric Umansky, a few of the regulars have decided to sit out the hand:
The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence — which the administration chose to ignore.
Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT . . . .
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
Some spooks appear to be dabbling in civil disobedience. Here's what Ken Silverstein says on the new Harper's blog:An ex-senior agency officer who keeps in contact with his former peers told me that there is a “a big swing” in anti-Bush sentiment at Langley. “I've been stunned by what I'm hearing,” he said. “There are people who fear that indictments and subpoenas could be coming down, and they don't want to get caught up in it.”That's all second-hand from an "ex-officer," so don't write blaring headlines yet. But for what it's worth, human rights lawyer Scott Horton is hearing the same stuff. Via email:
This former senior officer said there “seems to be a quiet conspiracy by rational people” at the agency to avoid involvement in some of the particularly nasty tactics being employed by the administration, especially “renditions”—the practice whereby the CIA sends terrorist suspects abroad to be questioned in Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and other nations where the regimes are not squeamish about torturing detainees.I am not Silverstein's principal source here, but I was able to corroborate a few things - in particular that a number of career officers have flatly refused instructions to work on the extraordinary renditions program. Some have sought legal advice. I was told that the internal FBI legal analysis of the program, which concluded that participants were potential targets of prosecution for conspiracy to violate the anti-torture statute, had been photocopied and widely circulated within the agency and was be relied upon for the view that the program was, essentially, a criminal enterprise.