Text 14238, 156 rader
Skriven 2005-07-23 15:35:14 av BOB SAKOWSKI (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Another CIA man speaks out
==================================
Testimony of James Marcinkowski
July 22, 2005

What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who
may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go
about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world.
The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to
collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our
capability to protect the American people.

Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning
truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine
officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan "dust-up"
between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching
consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is
that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course
of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take
any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in
semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the
safety of the American people. No government official has that right.

For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some
fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any
drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon.
The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover
officers--spies, that use "cover."

To operate under "cover" means you use some ruse to cloak both your
identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any
operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police
officer performing "street buys" uses a "light" cover, meaning he or she
could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and
during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police
station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime
syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellow FBI
agents after work may be out of the question. In any scenario, your cover,
no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it
does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as
well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with,
such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government
officials.

While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also
provides security for that officer's informants or agents. In most human
intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA
officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually
dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just
as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through
the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the
CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as
well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or
informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures
not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as
well.

The exposure of Valerie Plame's cover by the White House is the same as the
local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its
undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to
operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in
a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign
government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just
their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will
tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their
personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot
guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for
you and the source of important information will be lost.

So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential
agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief
identified the names of the department's undercover officers, any half-way
sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived
that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be
asked to retire.

And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not
partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie
Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage
is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our
overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are
our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their
own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home
team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging,
the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable....

And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government
exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the
toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and
that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years.
The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government
officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security
and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not
only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and
other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence
community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our
overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.

I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for
the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that
secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country
will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable
service to our covert war on terror because "promises of protection" will
no longer carry the level of trust they once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to
deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics in
this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the
information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should
risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting
responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are
equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect
itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time
the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies
display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher,"
or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or
continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a
disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of
cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence
that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of
non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions
on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care. Not caring
means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The
loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information
means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American
flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what
the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people.
Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the
United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot
would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from
the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the
responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have
immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially
involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances
of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are
routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least
sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those
risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we
have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political
rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In
doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and
safety of the people of the United States.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)