Posted on 06/22/2008 8:49:33 AM PDT by TexasCajun
In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative.
Agency officials and legal counsel told the Times that publishing the agent's name would "invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency."
In an Editor's Note linked from the story on KSM's interrogation, the Times defended its decision by stating that "other government employees" had been "named publicly in books and published articles" or had chosen to go public themselves, by explaining that its policy "is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely," and by arguing the operative's name "was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article."
Times reporter Scott Shane describes his scoop as "the closest look to date beneath the blanket of secrecy that hides the program from terrorists and from critics who accuse the agency of torture."
The CIA apparently believes that by publishing the operative's name, the Times put the agent at risk for retaliatory strikes from such "critics" and terrorists, despite his here-described lack of participation in the agency's "harsh interrogation methods."
Of course, this is just the latest in a long string of Times articles that have leaked classified and guarded information critical to America's security and that of its people and public servants. Alert readers have long since stopped expecting any level of consistency from the same liberal media that was obsessed with the naming of Valerie Plame (though they've been considerably less obsessed with the actual source of Robert Novak's column, Richard Armitage).
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Wow..thanks for the tip on the Gertz book. I love Gertz too.
It sounds like a great book.
In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative.The New York Times, official newspaper of The Party of Treason.
Can we the people file a lawsuit charging the Times with Treason or is that something the government can do. How can we the people hold accountable traitors?
The New York Times sucks.
The only standard the NYT's has is hatred for conservatives.
Did I mention they suck?
When you get past that - nothing. Absolutely nothing.
CIA has to get better at hitting people...
This man's name, and the fact that he has a family, should NEVER have been made public.
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.
As opposed to that good old American trait, murderous?
Yeah but they were trying to run over Fidel Castro at the time.
This article doesn’t say when the trials will begin. /sarcasm
While I most assuredly think it was wrong to have identified the interrogator, he was apparently not working undercover, so there were no laws broken in revealing his identity. Doesn’t that make it different from Valerie Plume?
I just read the NYT article. Pretty interesting. Says
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sang like a canary—he gave tons of info about terrorists and terrorist plots. Libs, take note.
Only until they found out that the official that leaked the name was an anti-Bush, anti-OIF, liberal. Once they discovered that, they wanted Libby and Rove and Cheney brought up on criminal charges even though none of them had anything to do with the actual leak.
It’s a shame that the 9/11 terrorists didn’t mistakenly take out 229 W 43 St New York, NY 10036 instead of the WTC. I said it...I meant it!
Well....."other people" commit murder...guess they'll start pililng up the bodies.
Gosh, I was getting really worried, but now you all inform me it’s Bush’s fault, the world has stopped spinning upside down and everything is back to normal.
This is the very same New Jack Times that protested so much when the non-agent civilian EMPLOYEE of the CIA, Ms. Valerie Phlame, was “outed”, they allege, by the Bush Admistration. LOL! If it weren’t for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all!
Yeah, sure.
I can see the headlines now:
‘Bush Administration Targets Critics’
same old, same old
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.