White House Accidentally Reveals CIA's Top Spy In Afghanistan
from the and-snowden-is-the-problem? dept
For all the exaggerated talk of how much "damage" Ed Snowden has done, he hasn't actually revealed the names of any spies or put them in any danger. No, that's the White House's job. An apparent slip-up meant that the White House distributed a list of people at a press briefing in Afghanistan that clearly identified the CIA's top spy in the country.The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.Perhaps even more incredible is that, at first, the White House denied there was a problem with the list, until someone apparently figured out what happened:
The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.
In this case, the pool report was filed by Washington Post White House bureau chief Scott Wilson. Wilson said he had copied the list from the e-mail provided by White House press officials. He sent his pool report to the press officials, who then distributed it to a list of more than 6,000 recipients.Meanwhile, back in the US, the guy who blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding program is sitting in jail for "revealing" a CIA agent's name, when he actually did much, much less (simply confirming to a reporter the name of someone that reporter might want to talk to about a story). But, as double standards tend to go, I would imagine no one will be going to jail over this much more serious leak. After all, whoever fucked up and put it in the list probably hasn't blown the whistle on a program like the US torturing people.
Wilson said that after the report was distributed, he noticed the unusual reference to the station chief and asked White House press officials in Afghanistan whether they had intended to include that name.
Initially, the press office raised no objection, apparently because military officials had provided the list to distribute to news organizations. But senior White House officials realized the mistake and scrambled to issue an updated list without the CIA officer’s name. The mistake, however, already was being noted on Twitter, although without the station chief’s name.
Obviously, mistakes happen, but it's fairly incredible how the same people will brush off "mistakes" like this one, while going absolutely crazy over claims that John Kiriakou or Thomas Drake or Ed Snowden somehow caused a tremendous amount of "harm" despite no evidence to actually support those claims.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: afghanistan, cia, defense department, dod, ed snowden, john kiriakou, leaks, press office, thomas drake, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, gee...
From: Your former top spy in Afghanistan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, gee...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The way the law is written the president can declassify anything they want, without asking anyone. A president could declassify everything the government knows and it wouldn't be illegal.
But that doesn't mean that congress and defense hawks wouldn't be frothing mad about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least transparency is improving!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
Wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
Is a ineptness > a lie?
Is zero profit for 4 dead > profit from the 4000+ dead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
Regardless of whether if be
4 more or less than 4000....
Does it matter if they died under questionable circumstances, regardless of numbers?
More people have died in car accidents per year than we have lost per year in any wars we have fought since Desert Storm. But I bet you will say that the 100 dying in a war are > then the 100,000 dead in auto accidents.
Perspective is a bitch, mind yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
Is ineptness > a lie?
or the 3rd
zero profit from 4 dead > profit from 4000 dead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
But to be more concise.
You are drinking the same kool-aid the people you hate were drinking when Bush was in.
That is your perspective... "mine can do no wrong but yours are evil incarnate" Get it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
I'm saying that I can't get excited about 4 dead thru ineptness over 4000+ dead over a lie that profited the VP at the time.
What kind of idiot would I be if I was upset more about 4 over 4000?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
I'm just not getting excited over 4 dead over a lie about who attacked them when there are 4000+ dead, over a lie(s) that profited the VP at the time.
The first is shameful. We should protect our ambassadors better than that especially in hostile territories.
But to do nothing about the latter and go batshit over the former is a sign of too much kool-aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
Lying about who did the attacking over 4 dead with zero profit. That's shameful.
Lying about going to war, resulting in 4000+ dead (just our own) and making a profit off it. No words to describe that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
Perhaps the 140+ local militia, terrorist group members should be impeached too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brace for it
1) It wasn't actually Obama who did it, but a staffer.
2) If Obama did do it, while it wasn't wise, it wouldn't be illegal. The president can legally declassify anything they want, even if it would be really stupid to declassify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brace for it
It would still technically be illegal as nothing other than "Treason".
But the real question, do you even thing the Democratic Party would even think of doing this to one of their own? Obama could lead a foreign Army across our border and they would just call everyone that disagreed with it/him a racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
What was done about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
I'm glad you tagged me as a Leftard. I used to be a Republican but haven't joined another party since. Which party should I join?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brace for it
Won't happen cause it was an accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brace for it
In 2002, Plame recommended her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, to the CIA for a mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country. Wilson initially bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts, but after President George W. Bush made the same claim during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson denied his initial pre-war assessment. [4]
In response, Wilson published a July 2003 op-ed in The New York Times detailing the negative results of his investigation. A week later, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. [2] Many [who?] alleged that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.
The scandal led to a criminal investigation; although no one was charged for the leak itself, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush
From Wikipedia.
You have issues with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brace for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I believe this was an honest mistake - and not even your mistake, I would strongly recommend you hastily move to a non-extradition country.
- Concerned citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+1 Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizens of other countries didnt have to muck thru a bunch of bogus democracy before they figured it out. We on the other hand have had 11 years of BS and are finally seeing thru the crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why do you hate him?" I asked.
"..."
That's your problem. When people think too simplistically to base their opinions on anything solid, something is wrong. Had he said, "Because he persecutes whistleblowers," I'd have agreed, but his unwillingness or inability to properly articulate his reasoning (if any) indicates unwillingness to think for himself.
It's why we get people advocating violence as the solution. Why? Because taking responsibility is hard.
Not enough of us are seeing thru the crap, my friend. We're too busy blaming Blue Team or Red team for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anybody released the spy's name to the public?
If someone did release the name than that is the fault of both the government and the news outlet that did do that. The government failed to be secretive with a valuable asset while encouraging negligence and corruption in the intelligence community. And the news outlet failed because they just put a name out there without thinking about consequences because they are either compliant drones or idiots that don't know the difference between relevant and irrelevant info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost hard-to-believe that of 6000 recipients of this information - none have revealed it.
Talk about an industry contained and controlled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]