CIA LEAK: JUDITH MILLER OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ASSET!Mon Oct 17, 2005 23:2564.140.158.25
CIA LEAK: JUDITH MILLER OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ASSET!
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/JUDITH_MILLER.HTM
In an effort to provide the American people with accurate information about the CIA, its mission, and the contributions Agency employees make to national security, the Media Relations Division staff works with print and broadcast journalists on a daily basis. The Office of Public Affairs believes that accurate media coverage of aspects of the Agency’s work will build better public understanding of our efforts. The Division's objective is to be as helpful and responsive to the media as possible while still protecting classified information, including intelligence sources and methods.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/media.html
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD
The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
Miller's Security Clearance
By Ivo Daalder | bio
From: America Abroad
Having now waded through The Times's articles on Judy Miller, one new fact struck me as particularly bizarre -- Miller, by her own admission, was cleared to see secret information as part of her assignment as an "embedded" reporter in Iraq.
I had no idea journalists could receive security clearances -- and I had no idea that the mainstream media would allow their reporters to have such clearances. After all, one of the most important obligations of a person receiving security clearances is not to reveal that information at any time, while one of the most important obligations of a reporter is precisely to reveal information the public has a need and right to know.
Can someone explain why this glaring conflict of interest is acceptable? And does anyone know whether Miller's clearance was an exception or whether this is a common practice in journalistic circles, be it today or in the past? And, finally, as I note below the fold, could it be that this fact becomes the key to Libby's defense?
Oct 16, 2005 -- 11:22:38 AM EST
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/16/112238/93
---------------------------------------------
Monday, October 17, 2005
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/
Dr. Yes?
Seems like our boy Fitz is asking an awful lot of questions about Dick Cheney lately. From an awful lot of staffers who might be in the know on an awful lot of things.
This morning's Bloomberg contains an intriguing story that details questions being asked by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of a series of witnesses who have either cooperated with FBI investigators and the prosecutor and given statements or who have been called before the Grand Jury to testify under oath.
Fitzgerald has questioned Cheney's communications adviser Catherine Martin and former spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise and ex-White House aide Jim Wilkinson about the vice president's knowledge of the anti-Wilson campaign and his dealings on it with Libby, his chief of staff, the people said. The information came from multiple sources, who requested anonymity because of the secrecy and political sensitivity of the investigation.This, coming on the heels of the Judy Miller expose series in the NY Times and the WSJ, cannot be good news for an Administration already reeling from sagging poll numbers and Karl Rove and Scooter Libby feeling substantial heat.
Traitorgate officianados will no doubt remember that Ms. Miller was also asked about the role of VP Cheney and his connection with his Chief of Staff Scooter Libby in disseminating the fact that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA in its WINPAC division. (WINPAC consists of a group of undercover analysts and covert agents, some of whom are NOC status, who work on issues of non-conventional weapons, including those used by terrorists as weapons of mass destruction.)
It certainly doesn't help when you have Miller's attorney saying something like this on yesterday's This Week on ABC:
``Fitzgerald is putting together a big case,'' Washington attorney Robert Bennett, who represents Miller, said on the ABC-TV program ``This Week'' yesterday.
Well, that doesn't lend itself to good sleep going into a Monday, now does it?
There is a possibility that it may not stop at Number 2, either, although most reports have said that is a more remote possibility based on leaks that have come from witnesses in the case thus far.
Fitzgerald, 45, has also questioned administration officials about any knowledge Bush may have had of the campaign against Wilson. Yet most administration observers have noted that on Iraq, as with most matters, it's Cheney who has played the more hands-on role.
One lawyer intimately involved in the case, who like the others demanded anonymity, said one reason Fitzgerald was willing to send Miller to jail to compel testimony was because he was pursuing evidence the vice president may have been aware of the specifics of the anti-Wilson strategy.Judge Tatel's opinion was very stern in its issuance of a contempt citation for Miller, suggesting that those eight redacted pages contained a whole heck of a lot of smackdown for those involved in the outing of Valerie Wilson Plame.
My guess? If there are any charges in the offing for the VP, look for him being attached to a broader conspiracy. That new house in Maryland is taking on a whole new meaning -- sure hope it has nice views. Home confinement can get tedious looking at the same rooms all day long.
posted by ReddHedd @ 4:47 AM
FULL REPORT:
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/JUDITH_MILLER.HTM
=============================
... And does anyone know whether Miller's clearance was an exception or ... whether I had discussed my security status with ... the Pentagon had given me clearance to see ...
GOOGLE: Results 1 - 10 of about 157 for Miller's Security Clearance
Miller's Security Clearance (update 3)
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207408.htm
One eye-opening revelation in Judith Miller's confessional is that the Pentagon "gave" her a security clearance while she was an embedded reporter in Iraq in 2003. Discussion over at Press Think and BuzzMachine suggest this is an aberration, and, as such, is "news." Equally disturbing, she didn't know if she still had clearance when she was meeting with Libby the summer of 2003.
During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment "embedded" with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully.
There is an inherent contradiction in her last two statements. How could she know if Libby treated classified information "carefully," if she wasn't sure whether or not she had "discussed classified information" with him?!? But there is more to this than her discussions with Libby. According to the Defense Security Service :
A security clearance investigation is an inquiry into an individual's loyalty, character, trustworthiness and reliability to ensure that he or she is eligible for access to national security information. The investigation focuses on an individual's character and conduct, emphasizing such factors as honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, financial responsibility, criminal activity, emotional stability, and other similar and pertinent areas. All investigations consist of checks of national records and credit checks; some investigations also include interviews with individuals who know the candidate for the clearance as well as the candidate himself/herself.
Security clearances may be requested on individuals in the following categories whose employment involves access to sensitive government assets:
- Members of the military;
- Civilian employees working for the DoD or other government agencies;
- Employees of government contractors
As a reporter for the New York Times, Miller fit none of these categories.
A 2004 article for certified IT professionals details the process of obtaining a security clearance, noting the different levels: primarily confidential, secret, top secret and sensitive compartmented information (SCI). According to this article, it is your employer who makes the request for the clearance.
Applicants must complete a 13-page document, SF-86, which designed to eliminate anyone who is not "reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the United States." The article also asserts that this process "can take many months -- sometimes longer than a year -- and cost several thousands (even tens of thousands) of dollars. The more sensitive the job, the deeper -- and the costlier and more time-consuming -- the investigation."
Questions: How many reporters got Pentagon security clearances before being embedded (basically government employees) in the Iraq War? How long did the process take: in other words, how far in advance was the planning for this war or was the security process short-circuited? Who made the request -- the media organization or the Pentagon? What level of security clearance was granted? How long was the clearance good for?
Given the detail involved in completing an SF-86, I now find another part of Miller's tale colored with incredulity: she says she "didn't know" if she was still cleared to discuss classified information when she met with Libby.
Can anyone truly be this ditzy?
Update:
I've identified more blogs talking about security in my round-up.
Jim Romenesko posts this from Poynter Forums: There's a scandal hidden in Miller's report:
There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.
This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. It is all the more puzzling that a reporter who as a matter of principle would sacrifice 85 days of her freedom to protect a source would so willingly agree to be officially muzzled and thereby deny potentially valuable information to the readers whose right to be informed she claims to value so highly...
If Ms. Miller agreed to operate under a security clearance without the knowledge or approval of Times managers, she should be disciplined or even dismissed. If she had their approval, all involved should be ashamed.
Update 2:
Writing in New York Magazine in July 2004, Franlin Foer shed light not only on Miller's reporting techniques (strictly based on relationships) but also on her status as an embedded reporter in Iraq -- a position which was approved by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and which required that she agree to let DoD censor every story, which the NYT did not tell its readers: (emphasis added)
Miller had helped negotiate her own embedding agreement with the Pentagon”an agreement so sensitive that, according to one Times editor, Rumsfeld himself signed off on it. Although she never fully acknowledged the specific terms of that arrangement in her articles, they were as stringent as any conditions imposed on any reporter in Iraq. Any articles going out had to be, well, censored, [Eugene] Pomeroy [public-affairs officer for MET Alpha] told me... Before she filed her copy, it would be censored by a colonel who often read the article in his sleeping bag, clutching a small flashlight between his teeth. (When reporters attended tactical meetings with battlefield commanders, they faced similar restrictions.)
As Miller covered MET Alpha, it became increasingly clear that she had ceased to respect the boundaries between being an observer and a participant. And as an embedded reporter she went even further, several sources say. While traveling with MET Alpha, according to Pomeroy and one other witness, she wore a military uniform...
When the Washington Post's Barton Gellman overlapped in the unit for a day, Miller instructed its members that they couldn't talk with him. According to Pomeroy, She told people that she had clearance to be there and Bart didn't (One other witness confirms this account.)
Update 3:
From Sisyphean Musings: in the August/September 2003 issue of AJR, Charles Layton writes: (emphasis added)
In the weeks leading up to the war, Miller pulled off a journalistic coup that took her competitors by surprise. She talked her way into getting a secret clearance from the Pentagon and then being embedded with the 75th Exploitation Task Force in Iraq, whose teams were specially trained and equipped to look for germ, chemical and nuclear-related materials. In March, when Bob Drogin of the Los Angeles Times began seeing Miller's stories about the activities of this special unit, he realized that "she was in a great position to get the initial confirmation in the field" when Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were found, as everyone assumed they would be
See The Blogosphere on Miller, Editor & Publisher: Fire Miller, Miller and Plame: One More, Miller Talks; Confessional Contradicts Prior Reports of Libby's Role, Plame Timeline.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207408.htm
- RE: Judith Miller a/k/a Ms. Run-A-Muck !! — Mon Oct 17 23:47
- Inaccurate Info May Help CIA Leak Probe — Tue Oct 18 00:58
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
