Denmark’s Intelligence and Security Agency (PET) Chief Jakob Scharf has
categorically denied that his agency was involved in furnishing information
to American authorities, which led to the liquidation of al-Qaeda’s Anwar
al-Awlaki in 2011.
“It is an absolute rule at PET that we are a civilian intelligence agency. We
cannot and will not take part in operations that do not have a civilian
goal,” Scharf says in his first interview since an apparently dissatisfied
former informant has alleged PET involvement in plans to kill al-Awlaki.
“We cannot and will not take part in operations that have the goal of killing
people irrespective of whether these are seen as civilians or military
personnel. It is an absolute for us that such (operations) are outside the
realm of what PET can, what it is allowed to and what PET is prepared to,”
Scharf says, adding that his agency always determines whether sharing
information with partners is defensible.
“It is also clear that we do not just accept guarantees, but also take our
precautions to make sure that cooperation is not used towards an objective
that PET cannot or will not be part of,” he says.
In a series of articles in Jyllands-Posten, Morten Storm, who claims to be a
former informant for PET, has made wide-reaching claims of PET involvement
in a CIA-led operation to locate and kill Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011.
The latest disclosure purports to be a taped conversation between Storm and a
PET officer that has prompted demands for the Justice Minister to explain
PET’s role in the affair.
Asked if PET would share information about the whereabouts of a known
terrorist, given that it is well known that the CIA liquidates terrorists,
Scharf says: “It is certainly information that must be handled carefully and
where you must be careful about precisely what detailed information you
share, and what you are contributing to.”
“But it is also important to say that localising individuals and networks is
an important part of any intelligence operation. But we take precautionary
measures to ensure that that sort of information cannot of itself be used by
others to carry out operations that we cannot be part of,” Scharf says.
Nonetheless, Scharf says that there is grey area where information-sharing on
localising terrorists can take place depending on the circumstances.
“It depends who we in such a case are sharing information with and what the
information can be used for. One could imagine situations in which we could
share such information with a foreign intelligence agency, if we feel
sufficiently sure that the information of itself cannot be used to carry out
an operation that we cannot condone,” Scharf says.
Storm, who for some time was a Muslim convert, has furnished several taped
conversations which have been construed as documenting that PET cooperated
with the CIA in localising leading terrorists abroad.
Scharf declines to comment on the authenticity of the tapes, but says that in
general informants are not always given the full picture by PET.
“This means that even if you feel that conversations between us and sources
are documented, it is important to realise the full context in which
conversations take place. Sometimes these may be conversations aimed at
calming a source,” Scharf says.
Asked directly whether PET has been directly or indirectly involved in
enabling the United States to kill al-Awlaki, Scharf is adamant.
“No. We have not contributed in or to the operation that led to the killing of
Awlaki,” Scharf says, adding that PET sees the terrorism threat as a
civilian threat and that those involved are civilians who should be handled
within the framework of civilian society.
Scharf adds that PET will not comment on information or allegations provided
in the case at hand.
“Protecting our sources is an absolute for us. Not just to protect people who
are or have been sources for us, but also in order to protect our ability to
recruit sources in the future,” Scharf says, adding: “There must never be
any doubt that PET can protect its sources.”
FACEBOOK – Follow
Politiken’s News in English