By Catherine Austin Fitts

I have had several people try to persuade me that it is ok to identify CIA agents by name in the interests of shedding light on 9/11.

I do not agree.

I confess I don’t know the particulars of the facts and circumstances of the situation involved (more here). However, I know that when intelligent people have little or no experience with covert operations, they often do not see the issues and risks involved.

The first issue relates to multiple operations.

Let’s say Harry Smith is a CIA agent. And let’s say Harry Smith has done something that you and I think is unethical, illegal and not in the best interests of US national security. However, Harry Smith may have been involved in earlier operations that involved people who are living and operating undercover. Harry may have gone on to newer operations involving numerous other agents and people.

If we identify Harry as a CIA agent, then we throw suspicion on his former and existing colleagues, thus putting them in harms way or compromising expensive operations.

Should we run the risk that Harry’s colleagues could be harmed or killed? I would say no.

The second issue relates to the nature of the covert puzzle palace.

Dick Cheney’s office as Vice President was under tremendous pressure for years relating to the outing of a CIA agent. Indeed, his chief of staff was indicted and convicted.

Right now, Dick Cheney is on a rampage to protect his legacy. (See my review of his new book, Dick Cheney’s Fluffernutter) A sweet revenge for a variety of people involved would be setting up the 9/11 truth movement on the same charge.

I appreciate the struggle to hold individuals accountable in that portion of the world that has set itself above the law. However, beware – there is nothing that tyranny loves more than entrapping the forces of transparency.