One man's whistleblower is another man's leaker. Scooter Libby, Mark Felt, and now Mary O. McCarthy may be heroes for some for providing truthful information to the media on sensitive subjects, but for others they are villains for using the press to pursue political or personal vendettas. McCarthy, the CIA agent fired Thursday, was a Clinton-apointee and Kerry-supporter. She's a major Democratic Party donor. In 2004, she gave $5,000 to the Ohio Democratic Party and $2,000 to John Kerry. She had reason to damage the Republican administration that she worked for, and did so. More troubling than motives is the dishonesty involved: McCarthy violated a signed contract, failed a polygraph, and usurped the decision-making power of what's classified and what's declassified by providing classified information to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest. McCarthy will be a whistleblower to some, a leaker to others. On one matter there is no real debate: someone who lies to superiors, makes promises and then breaks them, and "goes Cowboy" by underruling decisions on classified material, shouldn't be a CIA agent. Mary McCarthy isn't anymore, and that's a good thing.
To the people that hate Bush to the point that there reason is compromised, McCarthy is no doubt a hero. To those who believe in living up to contracts, promises, and one's word, she is a skunk.
The problem with evaluating McCarthy is that she revealed the despicable, uncivilized, and in some cases illegal actions of our government.
Dan may see that as simply attempting to "damage" a political opponent (he is possibly or even probably correct in her motivations being base) but her personal lack of integrity and whether she is a "leaker" (bad) or a "whistle-blower" (good) is beside the point. I am only interested in, and disturbed by, the existence of secret prisons in Europe which the CIA has been using to torture "terror suspects" that they are routinely kidnapping off the streets of other countries. These Mossad-like tactics are terroristic; they are simply uncivilized and un-Christian.
If we want to focus on whether or not she has personally showed herself to be dishonest and a disgrace, I would suggest that it is a complex topic for moral evaluation. For example, if a friend asks me "I want to tell you something but you have to promise not to tell anyone," and I agree to promise (out of loyalty and trust), and then they tell me that they are going to kill their parents the next day . . . what am I supposed to do? In order to maintain my integrity and be a man of my word am I supposed to only argue with them and plead with them not to do it but when that proves futile I have to just stay mum as my friend goes through with his dastardly deed? Or can I call his parents and warn them or call the cops to restrain him? But to do either would be to break my promise.
One can't agree in advance to go along with injustice and remain a good person. Neither can one agree to keep confidences and then when one's loyalty is abused and exploited by our confidantes doing evil deeds can one remain a good person of integrity through remaining silent.
There really is no comparison between what Libby did and what McCarthy did. Libby was protecting his bosses from being outted for their fraudulent claims regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions. McCarthy revealed illegal or immoral activities of her superiors. Sure that is disloyalty, sure it is breaking an oath, but I reserve my condemnation for the elected officials who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and then violated that oath. The responsibility that goes along with power is a two-way street. Agents, soldiers, etc., swear to maintain secrecy for a good reason, national security would be compromised if there are any "loose lips." But the governmental superiors have a responsibility as well, namely, not to commit evil and illegal acts under the cover of confidentiality. That freedom might make a Thrasymachus happy but such power as yielded by the Ring of Gyges is not conducive to just government.
