Educating the public on this matter is one of the things those of us on the left should be doing. I do not know if CIA agents are psychopaths or not. Perhaps, one does not have to be a psychopath in order to undermine democracy, employ people to murder peasants, priests and nuns, etc. I really don't care much about the psychological state of such people. It is a tenth order consideration. Quite a few CIA agents are bound to do awful things because that is their job.
The CIA is an organization of U.S. imperialism and as such one of its purpose is to make people afraid to institute democratic movements. The CIA is an organization that has undermined democracy and committed atrocities around the world. I don't think we have an argument here.
Those who bring light to the operations of such intelligence agencies should be defended on democratic and civil libertarian grounds. If the U.S. citizenry in whole or in part does not agree with those of us who wish to expose the CIA or its agents then we must try our utmost to educate them. You think that it is tactically wrong to do so, because we will alienate the U.S. public. Sometimes that might be true and at other times it is not. It does not change my basic position that whoever does expose the CIA or its agents should be defended. I include hypocrites such as Scooter Libby in my defense on these particular grounds. To do otherwise is to violate what for me is a basic democratic principle.
I am opposed to laws making exposure of the CIA and its agents illegal no matter who breaks those laws and no matter what the particular tactical considerations are involved. If outing a CIA agent is a big deal to the back segment of the public then, perhaps, when such an outing occurs it gives us an opportunity to educate some people in this shining Republic that it is a good thing to expose the CIA. I know from personal experience that some people I have presented with this argument had never heard it before and were, to some extent convinced.
What the Plame affair shows, of course, is that the current regime doesn't care about "National Security" even when it is narrowly defined in their particular propagandistic way.
But Ravi, I am surprised at you. I don't think you really replied to anything, I wrote.
Jerry
On 6/19/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
>At around 19/6/06 1:11 pm, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> > I think that one should make a distinction between exposing the
> > hypocrisy of the current regime and defending the law that protects
> > the ruling class as a whole. In my view Cockburn is basically
> > correct. Not enough leftists took the opportunity to expose the
> > "Intelligence Identities Protection Act", which is the underlying law
> > that led to Scooter Libby's cover-up. The more intelligence agents
> > exposed, especially CIA agents, the better for the world.
>
>
(I do not agree
> either tactically, or even morally, with the notion that each CIA agent
> is an evil psychopath who deserves exposure and its results, etc. At
> least not much more than me, for funding, through my taxes, the Israeli
> terrorism of Palestine, among other things).
>
> What is "not enough leftists"? Leftists, fortunately, form a spectrum.
> Some have to deal with the real world and politics of today, and keep
> their message clear, simple and relevant. Such groups might concede
> (tactically) the mind game to the right, on the "Intelligence Identities
> Protection" stuff, while noting their dissent for the record. Other
> leftists (and I have read at least a few) fill the hole by critically
> examining the basis/foundations themselves, and at various levels, and
> from different viewpoints.
>
> 1. The idea of reality and how the left should act
>
> The reality is that outing a CIA agent is big deal for a vast segment of
> the public. The reality is that such an act would be considered very
> wrong. Should the left be opportunistic about using this? Or is this a
> betrayal of principles, as Doug says?
>
> That, it seems to me, turns on:
>
> 2. The badness of the Outing Law
>
> Which as I argue does not pose a contradiction to the left's argument.
> We can opportunistically seize upon this issue without sacrificing our
> principles, because we are not in favour of the law, but in favour of
> principled action, as is the public.
>
> --ravi
>