I’m having a little difficulty finding the thread that unites some of the disparate elements in the unfolding story of Mary McCarthy, who was recently discharged from her job with the Central Intelligence Agency apparently for giving information (which may or may not have been true) to the press about “black prisons†being maintained for terrorism suspects.
The prevailing narrative on this story in the Right Blogosphere is pretty well typified by Dean Esmay’s post:
- Senior National Intelligence Office Mary McCarthy leaked classified information to the press without authorization.
- She had contributed to the Kerry campaign in 2004 and to the Democratic Party in substantial sums.
- She was on friendly terms with Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame.
The implication, of course, is that her leaks were politically motivated.
The response emerging from the Left Blogosphere (and the press) would appear to have the following components:
- The White House uses leaks as a strategy so complaining about Ms. McCarthy’s leaks is hypocritical. This position is typified by Juan Cole’s post, “All Right, Not All Rightâ€.
- Ms. McCarthy was motivated primarily (or solely) by conscience. See, for example, Oliver Willis’s brief post on the subject
Leaking in order to attack someone who makes the president look badly politically?
Give that man a promotion!
Leaking in order to reveal possibile immorality in order to restore common sense to America?
Do we hang her or shoot her in the face?
This is the point at which I become confused.
The position of the Democratic Party would appear to be that government, including federal, state, and local governments, is useful and necessary for the welfare of the people. I agree. But I see government as a sort of expert system—a set of rules and structures that encourages good practice and proper decision-making in a way that minimizes reliance on the vagaries of the abilities and good will of individual decision makers and bureaucrats. “A government of laws not of men†is, I believe, the way that John Adams put it. In such a system obeying the rules and working within the system is critical for everyone.
What kind of system is it when the only limit on the behavior of the individual bureaucrat is the individual conscience?
That’s why I don’t see the proper method of conducting government as finding the smartest, most talented, best educated people you can and then just turning them loose. That’s far too limiting and far too dependent on the good will of those few talented people. It sounds like a formula for tyranny to me.
That’s why I’m uneasy about anybody in government—no matter how well-intentioned—making up their own rules as they go along. Regardless of whether Mary McCarthy was right, wrong, or neither it wasn’t her decision to make. There were rules; the rules should be followed by everyone. Laws, not men.
UPDATE: Jon Henke notes another aspect of this story:  the problem of political purges. I agree that we should be “the leaks and poor job performance, not the political affiliation” but I also think it’s a little more complicated than this. When one party has a position staked out as the party of government, it’s natural that its partisans will be more involved in government.
What kind of system is it when the only limit on the behavior of the individual bureaucrat is the individual conscience?
What kind of system is it when that’s the only check or balance left?
Bureaucrats as well as soldiers can be guilty of war crimes. “I was only following orders” didn’t work any better for Eichmann than it did for seargents at the death camps.
So when your government is clearly doing wrong, it’s your individual responsibility to do what you can to stop it. And that might involve sacrificing yourself. If the result is that you personally get thrown in the concentration camp, that’s your call to make. But going along with evil because you’ll be punished if you don’t is, well, craven. Though understandable.
It isn’t clear that McCarthy was involved with the illegal prison leak. There have been various denials, she might have been doing something else. But isn’t this a good time to start up the discussion about whether the illegal prisons were a good idea that we ought to be doing?
There are internal procedures for whistle blowers to follow in the federal government, J Thomas. There’s no evidence whatever that Ms. McCarthy made any attempts at following them. Said another way: she did not exhaust the legal alternatives before taking action. Additionally, whatever she did it’s very clear that she concealed her actions and that doesn’t fit the definition of whistle blowing.
David Schuler, there is no evidence yet whether she did follow the official internal procedures. There is considerable evidence that the official procedures have been thoroughly corrupted.
I tend toward the prediction that we won’t get evidence whether she followed those procedures.
It won’t matter for her trial, if there is a trial.
And if the people involved were to say “Yes, she did follow the procedures” then they get it from both sides. From the left for blocking the procedures, and from the right for failing to recognise and stop an obvious potential security leak.