But, Isn't That Some Sort of Crime?

So I'm reading that a CIA officer, Mary McCarthy, was recently fired by said agency for apparently leaking a story to the Washington Post alleging that the CIA was running a series of "secret prisons" in Eastern Europe. To add insult to injury, she appears to be an appointee of the disgraced, shameless former National Security Advisor under Clinton, Sandy Berger.

I thought for sure that leaking any classified information from the CIA was a criminal and punishable offense, but perhaps I missed something in that regard. So far, I've only seen this one story on it, so I guess one might assume there was a certain bias to the issue of leaking information and what should be covered. A Clinton-appointed CIA agent potentially leaking info on classified CIA projects gets a few mentions in the press (mostly defending her as a "whistleblower", unlike Gary Aldrich who was a "disturbed troublemaker" and whose revelations weren't criminal offenses, but I digress) and a White House operative leaks the name of an agent who's been off the undercover roles for years thanks to Aldrich Ames and we have I think at last count more stories written about her than were written about the bombing of Pearl Harbor (as well as an attractive picture in People magazine of the lovely couple). Yeah, NO BIAS THERE. What have we got Hans Blix looking for media bias these days? (And did anyone see the Hans Blix scene in 'Team America" - Hans Brix! Oh no! And that was overlooked by the Academy)

So, first off, I hope they learn to keep things in perspective and actually get the story out that someone was fired for leaking classified information. I would've thought severe prosecution was in order, but I'm a bit old-fashioned when it comes to disseminating any potentially classified info (true or disinfo). Not exactly a big incentive for other previous-appointed Clinton staffers to not do similar.

I mean, if someone like Sandy Berger only gets a measly $50,000 fine for destroying critical documents from the National Archives and a 3-year ban on looking at similar documents in the future, really, where is the incentive by relics of that administration not to screw with the current administration, as they have since the day Bush got in office? And how can anyone defend this man? After stealing the documents from the National Archives (was the Constitution unavailable for him to lift that day?) he took them back to his office and cut them up with SCISSORS. Does anyone see that possibly as an obstruction of justice issue or is that just me?

Probably one of my most serious and frustrated complaints over this whole affair, from McCarthy back through her boss Sandy, is that the government doesn't take such people seriously, so how are we to take the government seriously? This is protection? This is a judicious use of our tax dollars? This is open government? No, this is a farce and that they let such people walk with a bare slap on the wrist and a promise of a 12 month book tour and campaign position in the next Democratic presidential run is comparable to the federal judiciary whipping it out and taking the proverbial leak on the public. In other words, it's par for the course.