Then, Semi, you presuppose that Rachel, our protagonist, could have foreseen Van Doren's death. In fact, van Doren's death might have been prevented if Rachel had revealed her source to begin with. Van Doren would have been dismissed as an agent, debriefed, sworn to secrecy again, and end of that story. Van Doren died because someone suspected she was a TRULY bad apple, a double agent, not just a mother of some little kid with long ears.
I agree with the posters who disapprove of Rachel. She shouldn't have used the information in the first place. She betrayed government secrets, and such offenses may lead to people getting killed, in the US as everywhere else. Just look at the trail of blood after the Cambridge Five in England.
But apart from that - what kind of a lousy agent was van Doren in the first place? The interview at the cemetery where she completely fails to appreciate that, as an agent, she is privy to classified information and therefore a liability, and she actually threatens to expose more secrets? Come on! Are we to believe that the CIA recruit their agents from "Desperate Housewives"?
I believe that scene was located at the cemetery to remind us of the casualties of national interests - the buried soldiers fought and died for that cause, and here are Rachel and Van Doren feeling personally offended because they are treating these matters as a scoop or a minor faux pas.
reply
share