On 14 July 2003, the identity of a US spy, Valerie Plame, was made
public. Evidentially, the two or more people who first revealed the
spy's identity work in the White House.
Some are arguing that the revelation was accidental, that the
perpetrators did not realize she was an undercover agent of the United
States. If true, this is far more serious than the discovery that
White House security failed, since it means a lack of `due diligence'.
Plame, the mother of 3 year old twins, had been trying to find people
who might use chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological weapons
against the United States. The revelation means not only that people
who worked with her are in danger, but that other potential helpers
will shun US spies, since they will fear torture and early death.
It means that John D. Giorgis, who works in Washington, DC., is in
more danger than before. For example, the revelation increases the
risk someone will be able to detonate a radiological (`dirty') bomb
near the White House. Depending on which way the wind blows, John
might find himself within its fall-out plume.
It means that all US residents are in more danger if those who wage
non-symmetrical war against the US decide to attack people outside of
Washington.
One hypothesis is that these `the most insidious of traitors' (to use
President George H.W. Bush's phrase) acted to take revenge against the
spy's husband, who had investigated a claim and found it to be
fraudulent.
A second hypothesis is that they acted to discourage other people in
the US government from revealing truths from US government sponsored
research. (Clearly, both hypotheses could be correct at the same
time.)
Recently, I have read the suggestion that the perpetrators did not act
intentionally to reveal Valerie Plame as a spy, but that they thought
she was a publicly known employee of the US Central Intelligence
Agency.
This latter possibility means that the perpetrators did not
investigate Plame's status as they should have. They did not
undertake `due diligence'. This is much more serious for US security
than the possibility that two or more traitors work in the White
House.
Traitors can be found and arrested. On the other hand, in a
supposedly secure installation, `loose lips' are an indication that
the employees' culture is incompetent. `Loose lips' mean that
management has failed to ensure the proper priorities.
Two or more traitors in the White House mean that its security
screening failed. It is true that this is more serious than Ames in
the CIA or Hansen in the FBI, since people in the White House are in
the highest level of the US government. However, this kind of failure
does not mean that mainstream White House management failed, only that
its security screening failed.
On the other hand, when two or more people fail to investigate
properly, that means that the mainstream White House management has
failed. An overall management failure is harder to fix than a
security screening failure.
In this case, Not only must the perpetrators themselves be found, but
all those who created the failed structure must either leave or act to
change the culture so as to encourage better diligence.
Otherwise, those who give aid and comfort to the enemies of the
United States will win.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
