NEWS: CIA Asks Justice Dept. to Look into Secret Prisons Leak

The CIA has asked the Department of Justice to begin an investigation into an apparent leak of classified information to The Washington Post that led to the disclosure of the existance of secret "black site" prisons being run by the CIA in Eastern Europe. A similar referral led to the investigation of the Valarie Plame leak. Congress is considering holding separate investigations into whether the leak could have come from the either the House or Senate intelligence committees.



I think this is far more important than the Plame leak. Hopefully they'll figure out who leaked this classified information faster.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret "Black Site" Prisons
POLITICS: U.S. Intelligence Budget Leaked - $44b

So they are initiating criminal investigations towards whoever leaked their own utterly illegal activities?

Secrets for reasons of National Security should be things that could damage the nation as a whole.
Secrets for reasons of National Security shouldn't be things that have been illegaly done and could just embarase and damage the intelligence agency's and goverment.

Leaking classified information is illegal.

The motives for leaking the information can be used as a mitigating circumstance, but it is still illegal.

If I rob a bank and use the money to buy food for starving children, I still robbed a bank!
The judge might be lenient on me for my motives, but I would still be guilty of a crime, and punished. It may be a slap on the wrist, but the judge could not call my actions legal. I would still be arrested, tried and convicted.

I am in no way approving of the secret prisons. They too need to be investigated.

Another outrage by our government. How quaint to see the wrongdoer agency ask the Justice Department to investigate and identify the person(s) who blew the whistle on the CIA's criminally unconscionable misconduct. Let's go after the unconvicted felons within the CIA instead.

If the whistelblower is identified, s/he ought to receive a large monetary reward, a medal of commendation, and a hero's reception wth a tickertape parade on Broadway. The individuals who orchestrated the illegal prison torture system, from the lowest ranking conspirator to those in the White House, should be prosecuted, severely punished, and be removed and forever disqualified from public office.

What a disgrace!

WOW!!! That was quick.
Wonder if they'll have identified the leak and banged them up for 20 years before anyone involved in the Plame outing has even seen the inside of a courtroom

BomSquad: blowing the wistle on the mob, a gang, a serial killer or serial rapist isn't illegal.

That would be a better comparison ...

Doesn't matter if the CIA, FDA or PD doesn't want the criminals outed yet.

[edit on 9/11/05 by thematrix]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The CIA has asked the Department of Justice to begin an investigation into an apparent leak of classified information to The Washington Post that led to the disclosure of the existance of secret "black site" prisons being run by the CIA in Eastern Europe.

Am i to understand by this that if the CIA are asking for the leak to be investigated, they are pretty much putting thier hands up to having these "secret" sites now? Surely if they were'nt real, they would'nt be so fussed about what people make up?

CX.

Sen. Trent Lott ( R- Mississippi) was on CNN and said something about this that puts a whole different spin on it politically. Lott just said yesterday that he thinks it was a GOP Senator/one of their staffers who leaked the info to the Washington Post last week. He says the details had been discussed at a GOP Senators-only meeting last week, and that many of those details made it into the Washington Post story.

Lott told reporters the information in the Post story was the same as that given to Republican senators in a closed-door briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney last week.

"Every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper," he said. "We can't keep our mouths shut."

Lott, a former Senate majority leader who was pushed out in 2002, suggested the information was passed along by a senator to a staff member.

He said the investigation Frist and Hastert want may result in an ethics probe of a Senate member. - source

The CIA Cries Foul when they are caught red-handed breaking international human rights laws.

Jeez didn't president Bush just say we don't torture?

Hmm, if we didn't torture, why the need for "secret" prisons?

What goes on there that needs to be so "secret"?

While yes, the leaking of classified information is illegal, The citizens of our free country have a right to know what goes on behind closed doors in our government, if it will further violate international law and disgrace our countrie's government as liars.

In The Same respect, would a whistle blower be deemed convictable if they reported bribery of a government official, if the hush hush policy was it's "ok" and accepted among those small circles as long as it wasn't public knowledge?

This is Injustice, what is our government teaching us? It's ok to hide things that would denigrate our country and people, as long as publicly we toe the line.

-ADHDsux4me

Originally posted by thematrix
BomSquad: blowing the wistle on the mob, a gang, a serial killer or serial rapist isn't illegal.

That would be a better comparison ...

You are correct that blowing the whistle on the examples you named would not be illegal.

Unless, of course, such information was deemed classified by the rules and regulations that govern such classification by the US government.

As it stands, the information was deemed classified, so revealing such information was a crime.

Do I believe they were wrong for blowing the whistle and revealing the information, not neccessarily. This does not negate the fact that revealing such classified information is still a crime.

Originally posted by BomSquad
You are correct that blowing the whistle on the examples you named would not be illegal.

Unless, of course, such information was deemed classified by the rules and regulations that govern such classification by the US government.

At what point do you stop blindly following your government and obeying the law just for the sake of it being "the law"? Morals will always supercede the law, not the other way around. Laws aren't moral simply based upon the fact they have been created by the legislative process.

As it stands, the information was deemed classified, so revealing such information was a crime.

Do I believe they were wrong for blowing the whistle and revealing the information, not neccessarily. This does not negate the fact that revealing such classified information is still a crime.

I wonder if you'd be singing the same tune if there was someone in one of the U.S. intelligence agencies that went to the New York Times or the Washinton Post or whatever and gave them undeniable evidence that George W. Bush and co. plotted and carried out the September 11th WTC attack.

I would hope not.

There is a difference between what is morally right, and what is lawfully right. Sometimes they end up being the same thing, but sometimes they do not.

In no way am I supporting the CIA's use of secret prisons. Nowhere have I stated any opinion on the use or existance of these prisons. You have basically assumed that I support these prisons because I point out that revealing their existance was a crime.

So now I will state my opinion on these prisons...the existance of any kind of secret prison, where people can be locked up without anyone knowing of their whereabouts or condition is morally reprehensible. Can I state it any plainer?

The person that revealed the existance of these secret prisons should be lauded for their courage.

However, this still does not negate the fact they the person that revealed this information broke the law to do so. If something is classified, and some releases that information to the public, there has to be a consequence for that action, no matter how noble the intention was.

We live in a society of laws. These laws need to be obeyed for the good of society. If you don't like a law, contact your representative and lobby to get that law changed. If people only obeyed laws when they felt like it, or when it was convienient, we would not have laws, we would have mere suggestions of appropriate behavior.

Originally posted by BomSquad
There is a difference between what is morally right, and what is lawfully right. Sometimes they end up being the same thing, but sometimes they do not.

Right.

The person that revealed the existance of these secret prisons should be lauded for their courage.

They should also have their identity protected and keep their security clearance so that if something like this happens again in the future they can go to the press. If you we investigated everyone who leaked information that needs to be leaked we as a society would never hear about secret prisons and the circumvention of torture laws because those agents who have enough of a sense of morality to whistle blow would loose their security clearances.

However, this still does not negate the fact they the person that revealed this information broke the law to do so. If something is classified, and some releases that information to the public, there has to be a consequence for that action, no matter how noble the intention was.

So if you were living in Germany during WWII and you hid your Jewish neighbors in your attic, should you suffer consequence of breaking the law?

If you had a hidden camera when the police stopped you or came to your home and blatantly violated your constitutional rights, should you suffer the consequences of breaking the law by giving that footage to the press?

We live in a society of laws. These laws need to be obeyed for the good of society.

Bad laws need to be disobeyed for the good of society.

If people only obeyed laws when they felt like it, or when it was convienient, we would not have laws, we would have mere suggestions of appropriate behavior.

The following is a quote that I was (and still am) planning to use in another post about civil disobediance. I hope that it will enlighten you on the true nature of laws and why your view is incongruent with a just society:

Nuremberg tribunal prosecutors understood the spirit of laws. Law does not exist independently of persons who believe in it. During a Roman Catholic mass the faithful witness and participate in a miracle. A group of atheists could gather and mimic the proceedings, but the activity would no longer have meaning even though words and ceremony were duplicated in finest detail. Nazis were legal atheists; they did not believe in law. They duplicated the outward form but emptied legal ritual of meaning. The decrees, courts, and documents were no more valid than a mass celebrated by an atheist. Retaining the outward forms of law, however, made citizens feel comfortable: The old priests were gone, and the new ones spoke with a strange accent, but nonetheless they were adept with traditional words and ceremonies, and the congregation felt reassured. Even troubled members would not consider leaving the Church. What they did not realize was that the Church was gone. The community of believers remained, but had been hijacked by unbelieving persons garbed in priestly robes, who cynically exploited the congregation’s beliefs in order to enslave the faithful.

Nuremberg prosecutors saw through all that. Elections do not demonstrate existence of democracy; they are a ritual of democracy and are meaningless when performed in other contexts. Court sessions are a ritual of law but mean nothing if conducted by persons who demolish the foundation upholding law. All that is left is rubble.

Nazis argued that law is neutral, a tool that can be used for any purpose. Nuremburg prosecutors countered that law cannot exist apart from its protection of individuals against excess by ruthless private and public agents. Defendants accused of crimes against humanity coolly produced decrees and permits in triplicate, and were genuinely shocked when prosecutors dismissed all those documents.

-From the book "Nazi Justiz" by Richard Lawrence Miller

Again you are confusing the item being revealed with the ACT of revealing it. These are 2 seperate things.

The law should be changed so that revealing an offence against the law could never be prosecuted as breaking the law itself.

The item being revealed was unlawful. TRUE.
The act of revealing classified information was unlawful. TRUE.

Whether we agree with the motives of the person DOING THE RIGHT THING or not is, in the eyes of the law, irrelavent.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the front of the bus, she broke the law. She was arrested, and punished (if my memory serves).

Was she right in refusing to give up her seat? ABSOLUTELY!
Was the officer arresting her right in arresting her? ABSOLUTELY!
Did this incident help get the law changed because the law itself was immoral? ABSOLUTELY!

I have nothing against civil disobedience. I have nothing against protest of unjust laws. But there is some confusion here about what was unjust.

The secret prisons, keeping people incommunicado? ABSOLUTELY UNJUST!!!
Laws criminalizing the dissemination of classified information? ABSOLUTELY JUST!

We can't pick and choose when it is correct to obey the law and not expect to be tried and convicted for it. What we CAN expect is that if we do break the law, and we can convince society that we were justified in breaking that law, that the law was unjust, then we can change that law so that it no long criminalizes that behavior.

Was the person who leaked the information about the secret prisons morally correct for doing so? ABSOLUTELY!
Did that person break the law when they leaked the information? ABSOLUTELY!

If you we investigated everyone who leaked information that needs to be leaked we as a society would never hear about secret prisons and the circumvention of torture laws because those agents who have enough of a sense of morality to whistle blow would loose their security clearances.

I agree completely that this information needed to be leaked. That is not my argument. You seem to also imply that there is only a small supply of people with the moral courage to do the right thing, DESPITE the consequences. I have a greater faith in my fellow citizens. I believe that as long as there is injustice and imorallity in the world, there will be those who fight against it. Maybe I am naive, but I think not. There are countless examples throughout history of people making the tough choice to do the right thing and damn the consequences.

The law criminalizing the dissemination of classified information is not, in itself, immoral. It does not take into account what that information is, only whether or not it is classified. If we disagree with the law, for whatever reason, we have an avenue of action to take. Get the law changed. Put in circumstances where the law could be violated without consequences (such as whistle blowing on an illegal activity that has been classified).

We should never allow illegal activities to go unchallenged, whether classified or not. Any time a law is broken, the perpetrator should get their day in court. Then they can get up before the judge and plead their case. It is up to the judge to decide. It is not up to the mob. Mob justice, for good or ill, is always damaging to a society. If they go before the judge and fail to convince them of the rightness of their actions, they can appeal to a higher court.

We, the people, have agreed to abide by the laws passed by our representatives in governement. If we disagree with these laws we can lobby to get them changed. Failing that, we can vote our representatives out of office, electing representatives who believe as we do, and then change the law. Failing that, we can break the law, get arrested, and then plead our case before a judge. Failing that, we can appeal to a higher court and plead our case again.

The person who leaked the information has decided to break the law. They should be investigated and arrested. When they have their day in court, they can tell the judge why they leaked the information and why they believe (as I also believe) in the rightness of their actions. It is then for the judge to decide, not you or I.

IMHO,
Im a taxpayer, if I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. The IRS garnishes my wages and I do a bit of time. WTF should'nt I have the priveledge of knowing where a third of my yearly earnings go? Instead of worrying about leaking about the secret prisons across the world we have, why not do more for the antics that happen here? After all, if they couldnt catch terorists taking flying lessons down in FLorida, what flipping business can they possibly have trying to nab internationals?

There's an interesting point in all of this...
IF we don't have "secret CIA prisons" as the White House says, than how can leaking even occur? Logic tells us it must be true, because it is being called a leak of classified information. So, we have several crimes here - the leaking of classified info and the breaking of Geneva Conventions at the very least. If you take what Sen Lott said about VP Chaney running his mouth at a Republican LUNCHEON, this is also another crime if all attending were not of suficient clearance level to even be hearing this sort of information.
This stinks to high heaven, and I have been waiting for this house of cards to fall for years....as for my personal opinion....I am rather enjoying watching all the information FINALLY being listened to that many of us have been trying to say for a very long time. They are criminals, and should be treated as such. Their high positions of power are not and should not be allowed as a free pass....
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time....a lesson that is coming to haunt them now.

The abuse of power is sickening. Watch a press blackout be issued and we never hear of this topic again.

All the source needs to do is to wait until the investigation is just about to get somewhere............, then have Bob Woodward state that he already knew about the prisons last year, and heard it from an entirely different source.

Then we'll just move on to the next distraction...