Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official

NYT ^ | 07/22/2017 | na

[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.

[Big Giant Head]

We take care not to put national security or lives in danger, and we take that concern very seriously.

We believe that the American public has a right to know who is making life-or-death decisions in its name.

Let's go back to Sesame street. One of these things is not like the other. See if you can guess which one.

Seriously, They feel they can put this guy's life in danger by publishing who he is, allowing crazed lunatic leftists to seek him out.

[BluH2o]

Wasn't the the NY Times one of the liberal rags that was condemning the outing of Valerie Plame by members of the Bush administration? Scooter Libby took the fall for it but wasn't the individual that outed Plame.

[LostPassword]

Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official
We are in a cold civil war. This may not have been much but if we see a chance make even a small advantage for our side (Ds, Obama, media, etc. and our allies) we will take it. In this case we are strengthening support from one of our allies (Iran).

When we win the war we will be able to be able to provide more details about our role in the war (much the same as the role of journalism in wars throughout history but still many interesting details) and receive credit for our efforts in destroying conservatives and Trump.
For now, just be aware that we are doing what we can to help our side win.
MACA (Make America Communist At Last)

/sarc

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Does the NYT not understand that the bad guys might find this information useful so they can retaliate against this man and his family?

Yes, except...they ARE the "bad guys".

[JimRed]

Why We Published the Name of a Covert C.I.A. Official

Because Hillary lost and we hate America, that's why!

[Mad Dawgg]

If the CIA official in question dies mysteriously or something mysterious happens to his family I would think a proper response would be to visit the homes of the NYT Editors and Reporters who made this decision and drag them into the street and hang them from the light poles.

[houeto]

There isn't anything covert about a CIA operative whose identity is known to the New York Times

You're exactly right. Somebody find out how they got the name. That is all I care about.

[etcb]

Isn’t it against the law to publish names of covert agents, regardless of reason?

No

[houeto]

Treason by the Constitution.

No, it's not. The treason was committed by whoever released the name to the public news media.

[houeto]

Just shoot the entire Management of the NYT.

Good grief! Everybody is saying the same thing. The person that deserves a firing squad is whoever leaked the name to a newspaper.

[onedoug]

The times exonerated, eh?

[houeto]

Not interested in who the inside leaker is, eh?

[onedoug]

Of course. Foolish question.

[houeto]

Nor do I want the NYT exonerated. I just can’t see how they could possibly be charged with treason by the Constitutional definition. I do, however, want to see them punished in the harshest way possible.

[piasa]

Depends on who leaked the identity. If it’s Brennan then there is no such thing as a truly covert operator because he could have exposed everyone hired before he left.

[piasa]

Who Is Michael D’Andrea, Trump's New Head of the CIA’s Iran Operations? ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2017‎ ‎4‎:‎23‎:‎28‎ ‎PM · by ForYourChildren · 22 replies Newsweek ^ | 06/02/2017 | Mirren Gidda 35 posted on ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2017‎ ‎1‎:‎16‎:‎28‎ ‎AM by piasa

[PapaBear3625]

“We believe that the American public has a right to know who is making life-or-death decisions in its name.”

I wonder how the NY Times editorial staff would like it if some group decided that the public had a right to know all about the NYT staff, and started publishing all their info, like their home addresses, where they like hanging out after hours, pics of themselves and family members, and where their kids go to school.