Spies, Lies and Polygraph Tape: Damage Control
Gary S. Bekkum
March 03, 2007
An anonymous government source explains the strange tale of a former USAF Counterintelligence Officer and the UFO tales that sparked an investigation.
Since we released the first in a series of stories under the title "EXEMPT from Legal Recourse," we have been subjected to critical evaluation from several directions.
On the one hand we have been accused of being cryptic and unclear about our investigation. On the other we have been under pressure to redact information from our stories.
We have also been reminded that we are "more than journalists" and have a special responsibility because we remain uncomfortably close to our sources.
In the March 1st, 2007, Washington Post, Howard Kurtz questions why Vice President Dick Cheney recently felt the "need to speak on a not-for-attribution basis" and notes that Cheney's press secretary had explained that "...it was determined that a more comprehensive readout could be provided on a background basis."
We were reminded that our efforts to uncover secrets are carefully balanced on the edge of disclosure, and span the precipice of deep background, where shadowy insiders covertly share confidence on a never-for-attribution basis.
We have also been reminded that our efforts would benefit from a better appreciation of working with sources on a background basis.
Our stories were based upon the best information available concerning the investigation of a former USAF Counterintelligence Officer.
Had we wrongfully questioned the shadowy actions of our friends playing spy games, or had we been deliberately positioned to set off alarm bells in Washington, D.C.?
"Damage control" is a necessary fact of life for the dedicated Intelligence Community operating within the smoke and mirrors shadow of Washington, D.C., where one is advised to quietly quench the flames without loosing the smoke.
We had questioned the reason behind the distribution of email messages that had come to our attention. Concerns had been raised about the possibility that the content of the emails might be made public, since some of the messages discussed unrelated business, that might be of a personal or sensitive nature.
We have not revealed the content of the messages.
In our attempt to best balance an on-going investigation with the various parties involved, we have been compelled to withdraw deeper into the background. With a little luck we will be able to move our story ahead, better inform the public, and reduce the overall stress level of everyone concerned.
We have been told that everyone is more than happy to assist with the disclosure process, so long as they remain anonymous.
Thus we have implemented our own "damage control" by agreeing to allow new sources the opportunity to speak about the situation on a not-for-attribution basis.
In a discussion about our recent stories with a Senior Intelligence Official (SIO) we reiterated that Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith's Blog, and his various on-line audio interviews were not the sole source of our information.
According to the SIO, "None of the emails ... involved government activities. They involved personal communications ... concerning fabricated email accounts used to disseminate false documents about UFOs, SERPO, etc. for which government (intelligence) officials ... were falsely implicated."
The SERPO saga is an Internet myth about an allegedly ultra-secret exchange program between the United States and an alien world. We were naturally curious to learn why government officials and consultants had expressed so much interest in what was at best B-grade science fiction.
The SIO confirmed that there had been an investigation.
"In the end it generated no conclusive findings."
It was also pointed out that short of a detailed forensic analysis of the messages, there was no way to know if the emails we had received had been modified, or perhaps even fabricated.
Nevertheless, it does appear that there is a subtle, and intelligent, method to this madness.
to be continued ...
Copyright (c) 2007 Gary S. Bekkum and SSR. All rights reserved.
Since we released the first in a series of stories under the title "EXEMPT from Legal Recourse," we have been subjected to critical evaluation from several directions.
On the one hand we have been accused of being cryptic and unclear about our investigation. On the other we have been under pressure to redact information from our stories.
We have also been reminded that we are "more than journalists" and have a special responsibility because we remain uncomfortably close to our sources.
In the March 1st, 2007, Washington Post, Howard Kurtz questions why Vice President Dick Cheney recently felt the "need to speak on a not-for-attribution basis" and notes that Cheney's press secretary had explained that "...it was determined that a more comprehensive readout could be provided on a background basis."
We were reminded that our efforts to uncover secrets are carefully balanced on the edge of disclosure, and span the precipice of deep background, where shadowy insiders covertly share confidence on a never-for-attribution basis.
We have also been reminded that our efforts would benefit from a better appreciation of working with sources on a background basis.
Our stories were based upon the best information available concerning the investigation of a former USAF Counterintelligence Officer.
Had we wrongfully questioned the shadowy actions of our friends playing spy games, or had we been deliberately positioned to set off alarm bells in Washington, D.C.?
"Damage control" is a necessary fact of life for the dedicated Intelligence Community operating within the smoke and mirrors shadow of Washington, D.C., where one is advised to quietly quench the flames without loosing the smoke.
We had questioned the reason behind the distribution of email messages that had come to our attention. Concerns had been raised about the possibility that the content of the emails might be made public, since some of the messages discussed unrelated business, that might be of a personal or sensitive nature.
We have not revealed the content of the messages.
In our attempt to best balance an on-going investigation with the various parties involved, we have been compelled to withdraw deeper into the background. With a little luck we will be able to move our story ahead, better inform the public, and reduce the overall stress level of everyone concerned.
We have been told that everyone is more than happy to assist with the disclosure process, so long as they remain anonymous.
Thus we have implemented our own "damage control" by agreeing to allow new sources the opportunity to speak about the situation on a not-for-attribution basis.
In a discussion about our recent stories with a Senior Intelligence Official (SIO) we reiterated that Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith's Blog, and his various on-line audio interviews were not the sole source of our information.
According to the SIO, "None of the emails ... involved government activities. They involved personal communications ... concerning fabricated email accounts used to disseminate false documents about UFOs, SERPO, etc. for which government (intelligence) officials ... were falsely implicated."
The SERPO saga is an Internet myth about an allegedly ultra-secret exchange program between the United States and an alien world. We were naturally curious to learn why government officials and consultants had expressed so much interest in what was at best B-grade science fiction.
The SIO confirmed that there had been an investigation.
"In the end it generated no conclusive findings."
It was also pointed out that short of a detailed forensic analysis of the messages, there was no way to know if the emails we had received had been modified, or perhaps even fabricated.
Nevertheless, it does appear that there is a subtle, and intelligent, method to this madness.
to be continued ...
Copyright (c) 2007 Gary S. Bekkum and SSR. All rights reserved.
Print
Email
