Leak and lose your pension

Byron York:

A bill set to go to the floor in the House tomorrow could make it easier for the nation’s intelligence agencies to punish leakers without relying on the criminal justice system to prosecute them.

The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2007, a far-reaching measure that outlines the intelligence community’s top priorities, contains a section ordering the Director of National Intelligence to study “the feasibility of revoking the pensions of personnel in the intelligence community who commit unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”

Although the bill was drafted long before the CIA’s dismissal of analyst Mary McCarthy, lawmakers say the McCarthy case adds urgency to the issue of punishing leakers. Specifically, some members of Congress are concerned that, even if McCarthy is guilty of leaking classified information, the government will have no effective way to punish her.

Last week, the CIA fired an officer — identified by others as McCarthy — who had, according to a CIA statement, admitted to “unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information.” McCarthy denies the allegation; her lawyer, Ty Cobb, tells National Review Online flatly that, “She did not leak any classified information.”

The obvious way for the government to pursue the case would be for the Justice Department to prosecute. But it is not clear whether the Department, which has spent two and a half years probing the leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity, will undertake such an investigation. CIA officials notified the Department of the McCarthy situation back in January, but there is speculation that, since the firing of McCarthy rested in large part on her failure of a CIA-administered polygraph test — evidence that would not be admissible in court — the Justice Department might ultimately decide not to take action against her.

...

There is more.

I think people are too quick in jumping to the conclusion that there will be no preosecution for violating laws that prevent disclosure of classified material. Since the justice department is handling these cases, they may not have the profile of a case brought by a special prosecuter, but I would be surprised if they were not a very high priority. While someone may have the right to refuse to take a polygraph test, they do not have the right to a job if they refuse. The same should apply to their pension. If they take the test and fail, there should be consequences especially if there is other evidence to support the findings of the test.

In this case McCarthy wisely admitted her contacts with the media after the test showed she had wrongly denied it. At that point she may have been talking to a federal officer where she could be charged with a crime for giving a false answer. Perhaps the same crime could apply when she gave a false answer on the polygraph test. Thus while the test itself may not be admissable on one level it may be admissable on another level if her subsequent statements prove she gave false answers.