Secret Agents Are the Enemy

I've always been mystified by liberals' outrage at the outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. What could be more civic-minded than the outing of CIA agents? This is an agency steeped in assassination and torture. The public good can only be served by knowing who these "civil servants" are.

The crime in this case lies not in the act itself but in the political motives behind it. But then the obverse is also true: Such virtue as exists in the call for punishment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby and others involved in revealing Plame's identity is only a function of political expedience. Since when do liberals want to protect the identity of CIA agents? Only when it's politically useful.

Secrecy is a dangerous thing for democracy, and Americans embrace it only because of our determination to be a world power — a goal that largely has gone unquestioned since World War II. Our foreign policy begins with the goal of domination, and so we compromise democratic principles to attain that goal.

The people who outed Valerie Plame acted only to shore up the Bush regime’s illegal invasion of Iraq. But the public identification of CIA agents, undercover cops and other officially approved sneaks should always and everywhere be encouraged.

— Gregory Flannery

(Photo: Bloglubbock.com)

Comments

[WestEnder]

If you had written a post about the origin of secrecy in governmental operations and questioned its role in modern politics, that would be one thing.

But calling for the outing of any and all undercover operatives is quite another thing. Either you are too obtuse to realize that it would put lives in danger or you don't care.

In either case you are the same as the neocons. You think YOU are the high-minded one, the one with true morals and principles, the one who truly believes in justice. The one who, by virtue of his virtue, is justified in passing harsh judgment on those less principled than yourself.

You're not different from them, Flannery, you only think you are different.

[Caleb]

I like that you're pointing out the liberals' weird position in thiscase, but to call for randomly "outing" undercover people in dangerous occupations is wrong.

If people don't like the CIA or what it's doing, work legislatively to change it.

[Dave]

Greg, it is the "CIA agents, undercover cops and other officially approved sneaks" that provide you with the freedom that allows you write this kind of utter non-sense.

[Gregory Flannery]

Dave, what a curious assertion! I was under the impression that my freedoms were innate and inalienable. That's what Thomas Jefferson believed.

[David Gallaher]

I'm with WestEnder.
Changing peoples minds is the objective. That will not be done--the opposite, in fact--by engaging in silly, snitty acts, such as squatting in Chabot's office, and putting people's lives in danger.

[Gregory Flannery]

Dave, I thought you were an anarchist. You support the state's use of secret police?

[David Gallaher]

Gregory,
My comment of 7:33 PM did not in any way disprove that I am a peaceful anarchist.
You just confirmed the point WestEnder and I are making:
A hammer seems to be the only tool in your powers of persuasion tool chest.
P.S. Pardon me if you are confusing me with "Dave," who seems to be a commie.

[Gregory Flannery]

David, one moment you accuse me of engaging in "silly" acts, and the next moment you accuse me of wielding a hammer. These seem contrary. But let's get back to my question: How does an anarchist justify the use of secret police by the state?

[David Gallaher]

Gregory,
Confusion seems to be more your problem than mine. To wit: you are still confusing me with "Dave."

[HypePad]

If you're aware that "the crime in this case lies not in the act itself but in the political motives behind it," then why are you mystified by liberals' outrage?

You're not thinking clearly. Do you really think there's no purpose in gathering intelligence? Do you really think that agents could do this without secrecy?

Or are you one of these "if it's broken, throw it out, don't fix it" kind of guys?