Posted on 07/23/2017 9:58:25 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
..
At a security conference this week, the director of the C.I.A., Mike Pompeo, criticized The New York Times for a recent article about an officer who was tapped to run the agency’s Iran operations, a newsworthy promotion because it was an indication of the hard line against Iran that President Trump promised during his campaign.
Mr. Pompeo said that the publication of the official’s name, Michael D’Andrea, was “unconscionable” and put his covert status in jeopardy.
Mr. Pompeo’s comments led to a wider discussion about the publication of Mr. D’Andrea’s name, and some readers wrote to us to express their disappointment with our decision.
Before the article was published, one of the reporters who worked on it informed the C.I.A. that it would include Mr. D’Andrea’s name — a routine check for comment that Times reporters make for the sake of fairness. The C.I.A. asked The Times not to publish his name, arguing that Mr. D’Andrea was under cover.
Times editors and reporters covering national security frequently discuss these sorts of issues and take into account the government’s arguments against publication. We take care not to put national security or lives in danger, and we take that concern very seriously.
In this case, editors decided to publish the name because Mr. D’Andrea is a senior official who runs operations from the agency’s headquarters outside Washington, not in the field. He is also the architect of the C.I.A.’s program to use drones to kill high-ranking militants, one of the government’s most significant paramilitary programs. We believe that the American public has a right to know who is making life-or-death decisions in its name.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official”
Lets see... I bet we can help answer this.
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” - uhh, because we are stupid?
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” - Like wow man, did I do that?
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” - We didn’t think anyone would notice
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” - Because thats what #FAKEAMERICANS do!
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” - We are treasonous spies and like to let our handlers know these things.
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” -
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” -
“Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official” -
Umm...
You published the name because you are rat ba*tard Communists?
The Russian spies at the New York Times
Sessions should be all over this.
The NYT offices should have been raided by now and all their files and everything confiscated pending prosecution.
Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official
What part of the word COVERT does the NY Slimes not understand?
They published the name because they are a pack of hypocrites who have no loyalty to their country.
may the times’ editors rot in hell.
Dear NYT: After being told by the CIA to not publish the name, you published it, endangering not only the individual, but his entire extended family. You admit you did this, using the justification that your feelings were more important than the safety of his family. Well, they’re not. Therefore, the American people have decided you all need to wear some white and black striped pajamas for a few years. Have fun with bubba and ms. bubba, although I have a feeling some of you will enjoy the experience. Love, America.
The American Public has the right to occupy the parts of the NYT building still devoted to creating Fake News.
RATs = CPUSA = Rooskies
I seem to recall a certain amount of froth-mouthed rage on the part of the NYT and DNC (but I repeat myself) over alleged agent Valerie Plame.
If it wasn’t for double standards, they’d have nostandard at all.
You are putting a target on this guy's back. Does the NYT not understand that the bad guys might find this information useful so they can retaliate against this man and his family?
He is after bigger fish, putting away medical marijuana users.
NYT principals deserve the harshest punishment given to enemies of the state.
“We believe that the American public has a right to know who is making life-or-death decisions in its name.”
This is treasonous dishonesty.
To suggest that the public has the right to know such a program exists, and that the authority to carry it out comes from the top of the security chain of command is one thing.
To suggests it it important for public policy transparency that the public has a “need to know” who is giving final operational commands in the program is a lie. To say that is a public “need to know” suggests that “exposing” individuals involved in the program is relevant to whether or not the program ought to exist. It isn’t.
Exposing the classified individual is NOT exposing the program. It is exposing a classified ASSET, a human asset. By exposing that asset it puts that asset at retributive risk by our enemies. That is treasonous and has nothing to do with “exposing” the program itself.
Pravda on the Hudson lies about its motives all the time.
We believe that the American public has a right to know who is making life-or-death decisions in its name.
Here’s hoping “unofficial” whispers begin, admitting members of the Sulzberger family and NYT foreign correspondents are undercover CIA spies.
Isn’t it against the law to publish names of covert agents, regardless of reason?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.