Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section

Another CIA Leak Probe?

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; 11:08 AM

Dana Priest, and her newspaper, are being hit from both sides.

Some conservatives are furious over her Washington Post story this month disclosing that the CIA has been hiding and interrogating terror suspects at secret prisons in Eastern Europe. And some liberals are angry that The Post agreed to a request by senior U.S. officials not to name the countries involved.

"We are being accused of being in the pocket of the administration," Priest says. "One student called me up from a Virginia university to tell me they were burning the paper at a protest, because we're complicit in torture."

With the House intelligence committee launching an investigation into the leak of classified information and the CIA referring the matter to the Justice Department, the controversy could mushroom into another Valerie Plame fracas. If prosecutors get involved, Priest could face the same dilemma that confronted Time's Matt Cooper and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller: whether to reveal confidential sources under threat of imprisonment.

"Judy Miller went to jail," said author and radio host Bill Bennett, a fierce critic of the Post story. "This woman might have to go to jail, too. . . . The hypocrisy here is for the media establishment to say some great wrong was done to Valerie Plame, but where is the outrage about Dana Priest?"

Says Priest: "My overall goal is to describe how the government is fighting the war on terror, and that gets you right to the CIA. This is a tactic. People can read it and decide whether that's good or bad."

Leonard Downie, The Post's executive editor, says: "There was a lot of debate about every aspect of the story to make sure we were balancing legitimate national security concerns with informing our readers about important things that were being done in their name by the government. There were a number of discussions with senior U.S. officials, and we had a number of discussions in the office over several days with Dana and her editors."

Both the Nov. 2 prison story and the 2003 outing of Plame as a CIA operative relied on unnamed sources giving reporters secret information. In the Plame case, however, senior officials were trying to discredit White House critic Joe Wilson by focusing on the role of his wife in his inquiry into whether Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material. Many on the left have cheered the resulting perjury and obstruction of justice charges against former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Democrats want a stepped-up congressional probe of the administration's prewar intelligence.

On the prison story, the unnamed officials--both U.S. and foreign--were exposing an interrogation program that raises civil liberties concerns on the left. Many on the right are denouncing what they see as the damage to national security, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist--who joined House Speaker Dennis Hastert in demanding an investigation--says he is more concerned about the leak than the secret prisons. Downie and Priest declined to comment on any leak investigation.

But others have plenty to say. John Hinderaker, an attorney and blogger, says on the Web site Power Line: "It would be a great thing if the steady stream of illegal anti-administration leaks out of the CIA and the State Department could be shut down, and some of the Democrat leakers imprisoned. It's time to put the Plame farce to a good use."

Bennett condemned the Post article on National Review Online as "irresponsibility at its highest," saying it would endanger Americans and their allies in the middle of a war. "It's the old question," Bennett says in an interview. "Whose side are you on?"

Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at the nonprofit National Security Archive, calls Priest a "brilliant reporter" and says she and The Post deserve credit for "groundbreaking work" and "her sources deserve credit for being courageous, too." But he sharply criticizes the paper's decision not to name the Eastern European countries, two of which were later identified by Financial Times and other news outlets, citing information from the group Human Rights Watch.


CONTINUED     1                 >

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity