Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Was Security Compromised?
Aired September 30, 2003 - 11:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Was security compromised? What damage might have been done by this leak? Questions for national security correspondent David Ensor. He joins us from Washington this morning.
David, good morning.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
Well, we're not going to know how much damage was done. That will probably remain top secret for many years to come. But it is reasonable to assume, quite possible, that the damage could have been fairly severe. First to sources, and then there's always the potential for the loss of lives as well. This person was a CIA operative who spent her career looking for information, for secret information that people were trying to conceal.
Now, let's take for example, if she was working in the area of weapons of mass destruction. She might have been trying to -- she might have been deliberately misrepresenting herself as an arms dealer who wanted to know more about what was available on the market. She might have opened up a flow of information from perhaps some source of weaponry, which might have continued until recently when her identity became known, and that source realized that he was supplying the CIA with information that he thought he was supplying to perhaps an arms dealer. So there could have been damage to sources of information that were in place that she'd spent her career putting in place. And again, lives could also have been lost in that process.
So the damage could be quite severe, but we're not going to know. That's going to remain top secret.
KAGAN: Also remaining top secret, and I just want to take a step back here, whether or not this woman really is an operative for the CIA. I interviewed Ambassador Wilson about a month ago. I asked him flat out. He said he didn't want to answer that question, but it kind of makes the conversation a little convoluted whether we know whether she is or isn't.
ENSOR: Indeed, and it's very germane, and you're right to raise the question. Under the law, as I understand it, if she was a CIA analyst, someone who sat in an office and analyzed intelligence and did nothing else, it's not against the law to identify her. It might be in bad taste, might be something most reporters might not do, but some would. It's not illegal.
But for a U.S. government official to identify a covert, clandestine and undercover CIA officer to a journalist is illegal, with a possible jail sentence of up to 10 years. So it's a very germane difference.
Now my understanding, from knowledgeable sources that I rely on, is that she is, or was, a CIA undercover officer, no longer serving out in the field, but still in the operations side of the CIA, not the intelligence or analysis side -- Daryn.
KAGAN: And given that everything's out in the open as it is, do you feel comfortable saying that? It seems like you have hesitancy that you don't want to be part of -- I mean, the cat's out of the bag, let's just say, but I think these aren't things that are usually spoken about in public.
ENSOR: Well, that's right. I mean, for example, everyone making their own choices. Given that CNN is on internationally, I have chosen not to use the name of this woman, her maiden name, that was her operative name. It's out there, but every time you put it out there again, there's the potential for danger to some sources, for even the loss of a life somewhere. So it's a difficult choice to make. Certainly it's legitimate to report the name. It's already out there. But the less the better in certain areas, I think.
KAGAN: Got it. Each journalist making their individual choice. David Ensor, thank you. Appreciate that and your insights and explaining your choices.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 30, 2003 - 11:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Was security compromised? What damage might have been done by this leak? Questions for national security correspondent David Ensor. He joins us from Washington this morning.
David, good morning.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.
Well, we're not going to know how much damage was done. That will probably remain top secret for many years to come. But it is reasonable to assume, quite possible, that the damage could have been fairly severe. First to sources, and then there's always the potential for the loss of lives as well. This person was a CIA operative who spent her career looking for information, for secret information that people were trying to conceal.
Now, let's take for example, if she was working in the area of weapons of mass destruction. She might have been trying to -- she might have been deliberately misrepresenting herself as an arms dealer who wanted to know more about what was available on the market. She might have opened up a flow of information from perhaps some source of weaponry, which might have continued until recently when her identity became known, and that source realized that he was supplying the CIA with information that he thought he was supplying to perhaps an arms dealer. So there could have been damage to sources of information that were in place that she'd spent her career putting in place. And again, lives could also have been lost in that process.
So the damage could be quite severe, but we're not going to know. That's going to remain top secret.
KAGAN: Also remaining top secret, and I just want to take a step back here, whether or not this woman really is an operative for the CIA. I interviewed Ambassador Wilson about a month ago. I asked him flat out. He said he didn't want to answer that question, but it kind of makes the conversation a little convoluted whether we know whether she is or isn't.
ENSOR: Indeed, and it's very germane, and you're right to raise the question. Under the law, as I understand it, if she was a CIA analyst, someone who sat in an office and analyzed intelligence and did nothing else, it's not against the law to identify her. It might be in bad taste, might be something most reporters might not do, but some would. It's not illegal.
But for a U.S. government official to identify a covert, clandestine and undercover CIA officer to a journalist is illegal, with a possible jail sentence of up to 10 years. So it's a very germane difference.
Now my understanding, from knowledgeable sources that I rely on, is that she is, or was, a CIA undercover officer, no longer serving out in the field, but still in the operations side of the CIA, not the intelligence or analysis side -- Daryn.
KAGAN: And given that everything's out in the open as it is, do you feel comfortable saying that? It seems like you have hesitancy that you don't want to be part of -- I mean, the cat's out of the bag, let's just say, but I think these aren't things that are usually spoken about in public.
ENSOR: Well, that's right. I mean, for example, everyone making their own choices. Given that CNN is on internationally, I have chosen not to use the name of this woman, her maiden name, that was her operative name. It's out there, but every time you put it out there again, there's the potential for danger to some sources, for even the loss of a life somewhere. So it's a difficult choice to make. Certainly it's legitimate to report the name. It's already out there. But the less the better in certain areas, I think.
KAGAN: Got it. Each journalist making their individual choice. David Ensor, thank you. Appreciate that and your insights and explaining your choices.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
