Posted on 06/21/2008 7:07:40 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Probably means that after 50 years of suffering under communism, the Poles were glad to help America in its war on terrorism.
Actually, I think that Poland would be a more loyal American state than, say, California or Massachusetts.
PS My wife loves Kielbasa.
um.............
The two dozen current and former American and foreign intelligence officials interviewed for this article offered a tantalizing but incomplete description of the CIA detention program. Most would speak of the highly classified program only on the condition of anonymity.
Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. General Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA, and a lawyer representing Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request. (An editors' note on this issue has been posted on The Times's Web site at nytimes.com/world.)
It was the bastards at the NYTIMES who outed him..
Considering what happened to Danial Pearl, one would think someone inside the media would finally be able to connect the dots.
” in 2002 by an agency NEARLY DEVOID of expertise in detention and interrogation.”
What? It’s well known that the CIA had been in very bad shape in the wake of the Church Committee hearings (1970’s) but this is amazing!
How many other interrogators are now afraid for themselves and their families because they may now be “outed” by the drive-by media?
These men do critical vital work of the most sensitive nature. Because of this article, you can bet that Mr. Martinez now has a price on his head. Does this bother the drive-bys? I doubt it. Will their conscience sting if he or a member of his family is harmed by terrorists? I doubt it.
The article would not have suffered if they had used an alias and changed some small but critical details. Instead, the media behaves like it is accustomed: as help-mates to the enemies of our country.
UPDATE:
#
Note: The following text is a quote:
CIA Home > News & Information > Press Releases & Statements > CIA Letter to New York Times (May 29, 2008)
CIA Letter to New York Times (May 29, 2008)
July 6, 2008
A column in the July 6, 2008 edition of The New York Times by Clark Hoyt, the newspaper’s public editor, makes reference to a May 29, 2008 letter sent by the CIA to The Times, asking that the newspaper not put at risk a former CIA officer involved in the Agency’s detention and interrogation program by publishing his name. Here is the text of the letter.
29 May 2008
Mr. Dean Baquet
Bureau Chief and Assistant Managing Editor
The New York Times
[Address Omitted]
Dear Mr. Baquet:
As you know, Scott Shane has advised us that he is working on an in-depth look at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, before and after capture. Mr. Shane asked the CIA to cooperate on the project, describing his goal as a more nuanced picture of both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and our terrorist detention and interrogation program. We respectfully declined, noting that such cooperation would be inappropriate given the ongoing legal proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at the Guantanamo Naval Base. In addition, while the outlines of CIA’s interrogation initiative have been made public, many of the details of this valuable effort remain classified, another obvious bar to collaboration with your newspaper.
We had every expectation that Mr. Shane and The Times would continue to pursue this story. That is certainly your prerogative. What concerns us, though, are the attempts Mr. Shane is making—presumably as part of this project—to profile a former CIA officer who was involved in the Agency’s interrogation program. Mr. Shane has tried, in some cases repeatedly, to contact members of this individual’s family, high school classmates, and others, seeking personal information about him. This former officer has grave concerns about being identified publicly, and the CIA shares his concerns.
I called Mr. Shane on Thursday morning, 22 May 2008, and expressed the Agency’s strong opposition to publishing the name of this individual. We are convinced that it would be reckless and irresponsible to do so, as it could endanger the lives of this American and his family. At a minimum, Al-Qaeda and its sympathizers would consider them targets. The terrorists recognize that the interrogation program has been an effective tool in the global campaign against them. And they do not, to our knowledge, have the names of the officers responsible for that success. It is not clear to us why your newspaper would give them that information.
But there is another risk to consider. The CIA’s interrogation program has been conducted in accord with US law, employing only methods specifically approved by the Department of Justice. Despite that, some elements of the media and of our society loudly, routinely, and wrongly decry it as “torture.” In that poisoned atmosphere, identifying someone as a CIA interrogator makes him vulnerable to any misguided person who believes they need to confront “torture” directly.
The consequences that could flow from publication of this individual’s name are clear. I ask again that The Times not place at risk an innocent American patriot and his family. Mr. Shane said it was important for me to make my views known to you. I can assure you that the CIA does not make such appeals lightly.
Mark Mansfield
Director of Public Affairs
CC: Scott Shane
Posted: Jul 05, 2008 11:18 PM
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2008 11:35 PM
Last Reviewed: Jul 05, 2008 11:18 PM
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.