During the spring of 2003,
the Bush Administration's case for invading Iraq was dramatically and publicly
unraveling, following the failure of the Administration to locate weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and news reports indicating that the
Administration had relied on selective cherry-picking of intelligence to argue
that Iraq possessed WMD.
On July 6, 2003,
Ambassador Joseph Wilson published an op-ed article in the New York Times calling into question a key piece
of evidence used by the Administration to justify its decision to invade Iraq.
Eight days later, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak published a
syndicated column publicly revealing the classified identity of Ambassador
Wilson's wife as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer. Mr. Novak cited
two senior Administration officials as his sources, and several other
journalists reported receiving the leaked classified information from senior
Administration officials.
In addition to damaging
the intelligence-gathering capabilities of the United States, the CIA found
that the leaks may have violated one or more federal laws and requested a
Justice Department investigation. More than two years later, a special
counsel's investigation into the identity of the leakers continues and
President Bush has so far failed to make a concerted effort to hold accountable
those members of his Administration responsible for the leaks.
Press reports and
testimony from former intelligence officers suggest that the leaks have caused
serious harm to our national security. This document examines the national
security implications of the White House officials' leaks.
Leaking an undercover
CIA officer's identity endangers the lives of CIA officers. The leaking of the identity of Ambassador
Wilson's wife had two immediate effects: 1) it destroyed the ability of an
undercover CIA officer to carry out her undercover activities or to pursue a
career path in the CIA that necessitated further undercover missions; and 2) it
endangered her life and the lives of her family by potentially exposing her
identity to hostile factions affected by her work.
As former CIA officer Vincent Cannistraro has testified,
however, the circle of damage is far greater than Ambassador Wilson's wife and
family: "in pursuing a political agenda, the leakers destroyed a woman's chosen
career path without regard for the consequences. But the consequences are much
greater than Valerie Plame's job as a clandestine CIA employee -- they include
the damage to the lives and livelihoods of many foreign nationals with whom she
was connected and it has destroyed a clandestine cover mechanism that may have
been used to protect other CIA non-official cover officers." (Senate Democratic
Policy Committee hearing, 10/24/03) Because the leak ultimately exposed a
front company used by the CIA and probably also used by other undercover
officers, it is likely that the leak also exposed those other officers, their
families, and the contacts they developed through their work. (Knight-Ridder,
10/11/03) While the CIA has conducted a damage assessment, the extent of the
damage believed to have occurred is thus far unknown, as the assessment remains
classified.
Leaking an undercover
CIA officer's identity damages intelligence gathering, hurting our efforts in
Iraq and the war on terrorism. Not
only does the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity endanger his or her life
and the lives and capabilities of his or her fellow agents, it also harms
officers' ability to collect intelligence from foreign sources. Uncertainty
about the United States's commitment to maintaining secrecy and confidentiality
can erode the willingness of potential sources to place their trust in
intelligence officers.
As former CIA officer
Jim Marcinkowski has testified, "what
has suffered irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when
they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary
importance to us. If you cannot guarantee that safety, you will not have that
person working for you, because if they are exposed, they will in many cases
die. How are case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when
their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection and security
of the home team?...The problem with a refusal to accept responsibility by senior
government officials is ongoing, causes greater damage to our national security
as well as our ability to collect human intelligence." (Democratic Policy
Committee hearing, 7/22/05) The gathering of human intelligence was identified
by the 9-11 Commission as one of the key capabilities needed to prevent another
terrorist attack against the U.S., and it has also been identified as a
necessity in fighting insurgents in Iraq.
Leaking an undercover
CIA officer's identity harms the intelligence community's ability to enlist new
officers and develop foreign sources. In addition to harming efforts by intelligence officers to recruit
foreign sources, a deliberate leak such as the one that occurred in relation to
Ambassador Wilson's wife is likely to cause damage to the ability of
intelligence services to recruit new officers. Former Defense Intelligence
Agency officer Colonel Patrick Lang recently testified that "if an intelligence
service that belongs to a particular country comes to be thought generally in
the world as an organization that does not protect its own, does not protect
its foreign assets, then the obvious is true, in that people are not going to
accept recruitment, are not going to work for you. And the smarter they are,
the better placed they are, the better educated they are, the less likely they
are to accept recruitment and to work for you, if they believe that you are not
going to fight in the last ditch to protect their identities."
Holding the leaker accountable is critical to preventing further
breaches in security. It is
critical for the Bush Administration to hold the leaker or leakers accountable
in order to send a message that the United States will not tolerate any
violations to the security of its intelligence officers' identities. On July 18, 2005, eleven former intelligence officers
wrote Congressional leaders and stated:
"The
disclosure of Ms. Plame's name was a shameful event in American history and, in
our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a
threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any
breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of
intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of
intelligence workers and their sources... We believe it is appropriate for the
President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish
any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such
an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this
nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the
Commander-in-Chief... For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up
for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help
protect their ability to live their cover."
As these former intelligence
officers note, the President has an opportunity to right the wrongs of the leak
by calling on his Administration to cooperate with the Special Counsel's
investigation, by holding accountable anyone participating "in any way" in the
leak -- not just those that meet any narrow legal definitions of criminal
violation -- and by assuring U.S. intelligence officers that threats to their
security will not be tolerated. The President should seize upon this
opportunity to protect our national security and to defend the integrity of his
presidency.
Senate Republicans have
failed to act to hold the leakers accountable and repair the damage done to our
national security. Senate
Republicans have recognized the detrimental consequences leaks of classified
information have on our national security. Senator Santorum has stated, "You know, when we walk in those rooms
and get classified information, we know that, you know, loose lips sink ships,
and you should know better than going out there and telling anything that may
jeopardize the lives of our men and women in this." (CNBC, 10/9/01) Senator John McCain has asserted, "There is no greater need for secrecy than
in this operation because of clandestine and covert operations that are
planned. So I'm not proud of the record so far of Congress as far as certain leaks
are concerned. I hope no American plans or lives have been jeopardized. But
clearly, secret information cannot be leaked." (Press Conference, 10/9/01)
Yet, despite these strong
sentiments, Senate Republicans have taken no action to ensure that the leakers
of Ambassador Wilson's wife's identity are held accountable. Despite being solely responsible
for setting the agenda of every standing Senate committee, Senate Republicans
have not held a single hearing to investigate the leaks. Moreover, Senate
Republicans have defended Karl Rove and even tried to shift blame from the
leakers onto Ambassador Wilson.
The investigation of the public disclosure of an undercover CIA
officer's identity by an Administration official is not a partisan
attack. Some commentators,
including Republican members of Congress, have suggested that the investigation
into the leaks is simply a partisan attack against President Bush. However, as
the above testimony by former intelligence officers attests, the damage caused
by the leaks is real and continuing, and many politicians from both political
parties have recognized the importance of the investigation. In fact, the
investigation was requested by the CIA and initiated by the Justice Department,
and a Bush Administration official, Deputy Attorney General James Comey,
appointed a Republican special counsel to investigate the case after Attorney
General John Ashcroft recused himself.
Recently, Representative
Pete Hoekstra, Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
delivered an address describing the consequences of leaks of classified
information. Urging listeners to "cut through all the partisan rhetoric,"
Representative Hoekstra concluded that "each year, countless unauthorized leaks
cause severe damage to our intelligence activities and expose our
capabilities. The fact of the matter is, some of the worst damage done to our
intelligence community has come...from unauthorized leaks." (Address to Heritage
Foundation, 7/29/05) Likewise,
in an earlier interview, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel called the
investigation a "serious national security matter" and said that "I think we
complicate it by trying to bring politics into it. I don't think the
Republican National Committee chairman should be talking about it. I don't
think any politician should be talking about it. This is a matter that we need
to deal with on the basis of the seriousness of the charge." (Face the
Nation, 10/1/03)
Senate
Democrats have echoed these calls for a non-partisan investigation for the
benefit of our national security. Senator Schumer recently explained, "The
origins of this investigation do not come from anybody on the political side,
they come from the CIA itself...[because] there was fury that this had happened.
When we called for the investigation -- when I did and then later the CIA --
nobody knew where it would lead. Nobody knew who had done it. Maybe it was
some low-level functionary in the administration or the White House. Who
knew? But we knew a dastardly crime had in all likelihood been committed. And
if nothing was done, it could happen again and again, jeopardizing the lives of
both agents in the field, their sources and Americans because of the important
work that the CIA does." (Democratic Policy Committee hearing, 7/22/05)
