I’m not sure a lot of people on the left really understand what the Hillary Clinton email scandal entails.<\/p>\n
And I’m not sure reading this excellent synopsis by Deroy Murdock will help – because if there’s anything liberals “get” less than economics, it’s intelligence.<\/p>\n
But for those with ears to hear, Murdock’s piece is pretty damning. \u00a0Some of the consequences of having a foreign power “out” a “Special Action Program”:<\/p>\n
\n\n
- Intel officers responsible for those programs must be alerted.<\/li>\n
- Once alerted that SAP was mishandled and on a system that has been attacked, it is only prudent to end those programs.<\/li>\n
- What does ending those programs mean? Depending on the SAP involved, it could mean redoing war plans, terminating ongoing covert actions, rethinking how the exposed covert actions must be done and executing on that new plan, or, if it reveals a source, removing that source from his environment.<\/li>\n
- That has a significant impact. Presume, if you will, that it was a source.\u00a0If that source were providing intel of such value that it rose to the SecState, now we\u2019ve lost that source.<\/li>\n
- Intel officers care about their sources, and for two reasons. One, we\u2019re human beings.\u00a0We don\u2019t want those assisting us and our country to be hurt, even though we recognize the danger in which\u00a0they are placing themselves. Two, the business model doesn\u2019t work very well if sources think they\u2019ll be outed.\u00a0The US intel community already has so much trouble in that regard due to Edward Snowden and Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning. This just compounds it. Think about the next meeting between a prospective source and a CIA case officer trying to recruit that source to risk his\/her life for the United States: \u201cAre you sure a high-level official won\u2019t out me?\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n