Ex-CIA Officer Sentenced to 30 Months for Torture Leak

A federal judge in Virginia has accepted the plea agreement of former CIA agent John Kiriakou and sentenced him to 30 months in prison for leaking the name of a CIA operative who participated in the waterboarding of al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah to a free-lance journalist in an e-mail. The journalist then disclosed the operative's name to a researcher for a defense lawyer representing some of the Guantanamo detainees, who used the name in a sealed pleading, prompting an investigation.

The name was not disclosed publicly at the time, but it appeared on an obscure Web site in October.

As part of the agreement, the Government dropped charges against Kiriakou related to another alleged disclosure. [More...]

The prosecutors said Mr. Kiriakou had been a source for a New York Times story in 2008 written by Scott Shane that said a C.I.A. employee named Deuce Martinez had played a role in the interrogation

It is the first conviction under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 27 years. The Judge thought Kiriakou should have gotten more time, opining that he was not whistle-blower, but she agreed to go along with the plea agreement.

As for the Obama Administration's determination to stop leakers:

Since 2009, the [Obama]administration has charged five other current or former government officials with leaking classified information, more than all previous administrations combined.

< Activist Barrett Brown Indicted in Third Case | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    one example of why I do not identify with the Obama administration.

    Meanwhile, I've lost count of the (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    number of times "administration officials" have disseminated classified information or chosen to selectively declassify information because it served whatever agenda they were - and are - pushing.

    I guess Kiriakou didn't get the memo on "looking forward, not back," and thought it was important that those involved with torture be held accountable; apparently, you can torture and get away with it, but if you talk about who was engaging in torture, the full force and authority of the US government will be brought to bear on you.

    That is some great Department of Justice we have, isn't it?  

    when the government leaks information (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:22:03 PM EST
    even if they are leaking classified information that compromises our intelligence operatives overseas, it is okay because they have war profits to be made.  It is their reward for having lied and cheated their way to the top.
    But if someone else leaks information, even when it is classified information about government breaking the law, well that is just not right.  What right do the peons have exposing the beautiful people as frauds?

    At first I thought it read 30 years (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    I guess being primed for that by other sentences this week.

    Sad thing was I was not surprised at 30 years.

    Prosecutions for the disclosure of classified information are so selective...no one fears 'swift and sure' punishment. However everyone with a clearance knows there is that risk. I hope it was worth it to Kiriakou, and that the time goes fast and easy.

    I thought Cheney proved... (none / 0) (#4)
    by unitron on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 05:25:51 PM EST
    ...outing CIA operatives didn't matter?

    revisionist history (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:07:44 PM EST
    Wasn't it Armitage leaking to Novak, neither of whom were charged.  From Wikipedia:
    "On August 30, 2006, the New York Times reported that the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage confirmed he was Novak's "initial and primary source" for Plame's identity.[39] The New York Times also reported "Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife's computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said... Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.... He resigned in November 2004, but remained a subject of the inquiry until [February 2006] when the prosecutor advised him in a letter that he would not be charged."

    I guess you don't prosecute anyone unless it is the hated Cheney.  But don't say that they didn't have enough to prosecute SOMEONE for the leak.


    They didn't "have enough" ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:45:53 PM EST
    ... because they wouldn't talk, or outright lied.  As Fitzgerald (speaking of the obstruction in the Plame case) noted:

    And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

    As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

    So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.



    Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

    But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters (Miller, Russert, etc.) were also told.

    In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

    Regarding Cheyney's involvement:

    "There is a cloud over what the vice president did that week. ... That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

    There was reason to believe" the leak had been coordinated by Cheney and that the vice president may have had a role in the cover-up. "When the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the vice president apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment,"

    BTW - Armitage wasn't the "the" leak - he was one of multiple leaks - the others being Karl Rove 9also to and Scooter Libby (who was convicted of obstructing justice, perjury, and making false statements).  You have multiple actors all leaking Plame's name to multiple reporters at the same time.  Yeah, you're probably right, ...

    ... just a coincidence.


    That was then, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 05:29:37 PM EST
    this is now.  Besides, Obama did not want to look back, only forward.