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 ...
The same people who whined about Mrs. Wilson getting outed think this is great... I love the media! (/sarcasm)
Didn’t the NYTIMES used to be a big, important, influential newspaper once........?
...the NYT? Aren’t these the same people who wanted criminal charges for the Bush officials that leaked Plame’s name?
Once again The Slimes proves which side it is on in the fight against terrorism.
Hypocrisy doesn’t apply to liberals.
I demand an investigation! What did Cheney and Rove know, when did they know it, and did this “go all the way to the top”? Ah, you mean Chaney and Rove weren’t involved? Oh well then, let’s just bury it.
TRAITORS!
If the C.I.A. had any balls they would just kill the N.Y. Times editors and send a message to the rest of our pathetic unAmerican news operatives to not go too far in their unAmerican agenda.
Funny how this NYT policy complements the Muslim philosophy that if a muslim land is ruled by muslims for any second in history, it is fair game to become muslim now, and forever. Since someone once in history had been outed as CIA, now the NYT can and will do it, justifiably in NYT 'mind', now and forever.
It’s “Scooter” Libby’s fault!
Frog march!
Uh..isnt this the standard applied to the Plame case??
Shut them down now.
TREASON!!!
Shut the rag down!
It always boils down to whether one is a culture conservative or a culture liberal.
The NYT is more concerned about the big bogeyman they view as the religious right and the association with the GOP than they are national security.
Let’s see how fast the CIA sends a criminal referral to the Justice Department... They were pretty quick in the Plame-affair.
Frankly, I would want to be the journalist. There have been several writers & editors who have cooled their heels in prison over sources. I don’t think anybody is going to sweat throwing a journalist into prison over this straightforward violation.
...The end of their article published in the Herald even gives his present job...paint the target.
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.