Spy firing

Updated below.

I'm not sure why the firing of Mary McCarthy from the CIA is so interesting -- to me as well. It's the lead article in today's NY Times. After all, if she did leak the story about the secret gulags to the Washington Post, the CIA certainly has every right to fire her. In any normal time, in Clinton's time for instance, this would be almost a non-story. Yes, perhaps her motives were the best -- trying to bring to light the horrendous activities of a Naziesque government -- but, still, her employer certainly has a right to fire her for leaking secret stuff. Actually, the government probably has a right to try her under some version of the espionage laws, just as we're calling for Rove to be tried for leaking Plame's identity.

So, why all the fuss? Is it because it is such a counter-point to the news that Bush leaked secret stuff for political purposes? Is it because the government activities she revealed are so despicable that we all acclaim her courage in sacrificing herself by coming forward? I just don't know. None of those explanations seems sufficient to explain my gut reaction to the case.

Larry Johnson, who worked under her (and doesn't much like her) has his own take on this over at TPM Café.

Update: I don't know whether this piece adds anything to the mix, but just for the fun of it, here's a claim that Condi Rice is also leaking stuff to the Israelis.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday.

Prosecutors disputed the claim.

The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.

Defense lawyers are asking a judge to dismiss the charges because, among other things, they believe it seeks to criminalize the type of backchannel exchanges between government officials, lobbyists and the press that are part and parcel of how Washington works.

Update 2:

Glenn Greenwald puts in his two cents worth on the issue. As usual, it's worth more than 2 cents:

As a general proposition, a government has the right to keep sensitive information classified and to fire employees who disclose it. But that is a power that also can be abused. The mere fact that information is classified does not mean that it ought to remain concealed. It has been extremely common for our government to attempt to conceal its wrongdoing by classifying information because it would reveal that wrongdoing. Whether the power to maintain the secrecy of classified information is being used properly or abusively is typically reflected by which type of unauthorized disclosures prompt strong action.

The Bush administration is extremely and transparently selective about the leaks it seeks to investigate and punish. The only leaks which they dislike are the ones which bring the President political embarrassment, not which generate harm to our national security. They exhibit anger and concern about leaks only when the leaks expose conduct by them which is highly controversial and where even its legality is dubious, at best.

A substantial part of the case for the invasion of Iraq was made by the administration through selective leaks of classified information to The New York Times. Almost every front page Judy Miller story was based upon leaks from anonymous "senior administration officials" designed to plant evidence of Saddam's massive WMD arsenal. None of those leaks has been decried by the administration or investigated, because they were employed in the service of the administration's political goals.