Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A DUMMY'S GUIDE TO DISLOYALTY

Sam Smith

Lately, I've been trying to figure out how to pass on state secrets to someone without getting into trouble. I don't actually have any such secrets, mind you, but the matter is getting so hopelessly complex that I thought I better straighten it out before I responded to the small flower pot my neighbor across the street regularly puts on the sill of his right second floor window.

There are a number of models, each with their own hazards.

The most dangerous, clearly, is that used by former FBI agent Robert Hanssen. Hanssen's main error was to give the secrets to the Russians before Bush became pals with Pootie, to gave them really valuable stuff, to take a lot of money for it, and to do it around a photogenic and photomnemonic young assistant able to work well with photodocumentarian movie producers.

Considerably less costly was the route followed by Sandy Berger. For one thing he lifted his documents from the National Archives where even the secrets are more boring than those in real life. There is no evidence that he took any money for them and his beneficiary, while unknown, is more likely to have been a presidential candidate rather than some nasty Russian. For his penalty, as one observer put it, "He had to pay a $50,000 fine and pick up some garbage on the side of the road in Virginia." A friendly media made as little of it as it could, albeit quoting Berger's lawyer as saying, "It never ceases to amaze me how the most trivial things can be politicized. It is the height of unfairness . . . for this poor guy, who clearly made a mistake." From the coverage, it is fair to assume that much of the media agreed.

As this is written, I don't know the price Scooter Libby will pay - if any - for his alleged offenses - if proved. But not one mainstream journalist has yet explained why it is so much worse to lie about passing on the identity of an apparently not all that covert CIA official than it is to remove state secrets from the archives. If convicted, Libby - accused in the prosecutor's own words of a 'dumb lie' - will, at least until the pardon, face a dramatically greater punishment than Berger. And the befuddling thing is that no one in establishment Washington - regardless of their clearance - seems to give a damn.

I do, however, have the uncomfortable sense that if I were to steal some documents from the National Archives and stick them in my sock I might be treated more like Patrick Fitzgerald plans to treat Libby so I guess I better not try.

There is, however, one further possible route. Pass on the stuff, reveal the covert identity, but not to benefit the Russians or a fellow politician. Instead, give it to some officials at AIPAC to pass on to Israel. This encouraging possibility is raised by a report in Secrecy News about the espionage trial of two former AIPAC officials which is not going so well for the government. Judge T.S. Ellis III has raised all sorts of obstacles but the one most cheering to a prospective spy is this one:

"The nature of the relationship between the governments of the U.S. and Israel may also have a bearing on the defendants' state of mind, the Judge wrote, in language that may foreshadow close
scrutiny of U.S.-Israel relations at trial: 'The more specific the details of the alleged cooperation between the two governments, the more probative [i.e., legally significant] such cooperation becomes," Judge Ellis wrote. In another important observation, the judge wrote that 'testimony that disclosures of alleged NDI were viewed by defendants, or their contacts in the diplomatic establishment, as beneficial to the United States' interests is exculpatory.'"

In other words, if you want to spy for Britain or Israel, you have a pretty good chance of getting away with it, at least in Judge Ellis' courtroom.

There are, to be sure, a few residual moral questions such as precisely how closely the goals of Israel and the U.S. are really aligned and who gets to cut the deal: the President, Congress or the people? And which policies are covered: attacking Iran, starving Palestinians, invading Lebanon?

So it remains a bit tricky, but, for the moment, if you want to steal state secrets in the safest possible fashion, just make sure AIPAC gets a copy.

3 Comments:

At 5:09 PM, Anonymous said...

The heroes of the hour will be the first people to break the silence on the criminal Bush administration and the global elite. Only truly crazy people actually want a nuclear war: any sane person on the planet yearns for peace, be they atheist, agnostic, or truly practice the core tenets of any philosophy or religion that teaches us to love they neighbor and do unto others.

Just about every worthwhile philosophy in human history shares these core values, simply with different wording. Churches are institutions founded on such philosophies that can be corrupted by $$$, the root of all evil it is said. Can anyone name a war that doesn't have its roots in greed?

When the planets future may be in peril, on the bring of an escalating global nuclear exchange, everyone and everything stands to lose. The safest bet to stave off such a crisis is to get such classified information out to the public everywhere, as quickly as possible, and the internet provides one way to do that. The global ruling class seeks to shut down the internet, and the psychological operations are already in place to prep unsuspecting people to blame terrorists, while western powers run guns, drugs, and torture camps, and point their fingers at the "terrorists" defending their homelands.

 
At 9:53 AM, Anonymous said...

You note correctly that no mainstream journalist (or media source) "has yet explained why it is so much worse to lie about passing on the identity of an apparently not all that covert CIA official than it is to remove state secrets from the archives." Point taken, and by no means do I wish to defend Sandy Berger, nor to suggest that Libby's offense was worse than Berger's.

The reference to the "not all that covert CIA official", I submit, understates the significance of the Plame/Wilson/Scooter/Cheney case. Obviously part of the reason for "outing" Plame was to get back at Joe Wilson for having had the temerity to speak truthfully in public. The leak, however, also served the interests of the administration in removing her from her post. As Corn and Isikoff have noted, Plame previously worked in the Counterproliferation Division, focusing on Iraq. In 2001 the unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Her task, in effect, was to find wmd's in Iraq -- and of course she was unsuccessful in this task, as there were no wmd's to be found.

Larisa Alexandrovna, in a recent "Raw Story" posting, reports that prior to being outed, Plame "was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran."

It seems plausible, therefore, that Valerie Plame was as much a target as was Joseph Wilson. She refused to join the administration chorus claiming that Iraq had wmd's; as we prepare for the next invasion (of Iran) the administration certainly does not want anyone telling the public that there are no wmd's there, either. Might dampen public support for our next attack in the war on terror --yet another aspect of the case that the mainstream media has missed or has ignored.

Keep up the good work, and thanks as always for your efforts.

Peace,
Blaine De Lancey
Syracuse, NY

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous said...

Secrecy News

 

Post a Comment

<< Home