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).
The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of Deuce Martinez, an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify Mr. Martinez would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.
After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.
The Times's policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.
Mr. Martinez, a career analyst at the agency until his retirement a few years ago, did not directly participate in waterboarding or other harsh interrogation methods that critics describe as torture and, in fact, turned down an offer to be trained in such tactics.
The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.
—Mick Wright is a freelance journalist who lives in Memphis, Tennessee. His personal blog is at mickwright.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Irony
June 22, 2008 - 10:25 ET by allanfThis is no Valerie Plame scandal. The Times can out any CIA agent it chooses. They are Journalists.
Where is Waxman? Where is
June 22, 2008 - 12:38 ET by kgWhere is Waxman? Where is the outrage from the Democrats? Where is the Special Council? Where are the investigations? Or are the Democrats full of crap and only scream out when they think they can sink a Republican?
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
You know the answer to your
June 22, 2008 - 13:01 ET by GregEYou know the answer to your own question.
No Plame scandal - you're
June 23, 2008 - 13:49 ET by mattmNo Plame scandal - you're right; this one's legitimate....the other one was a DemonRat smear campaign.
I get the feeling...
June 22, 2008 - 10:32 ET by sarcasmoFrom the NYT's explanation, that they'd have protected his identity if he'd actually taken the waterboarding class and/or done waterboarding himself.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Yeah, sure
June 22, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Indiana JoeIt does leave that impression, doesn't it?
But do you believe it? Waterboarding is "torture," and torture is illegal, which would make a waterboarder a criminal. And the Times publishes criminals' names all the time, right?
They'd have jumped at the chance.
Selective Treason
June 22, 2008 - 10:43 ET by w0tmIt is now accepted by all that "treason" only applies to those who are trying to save our country, not to those who seem to be having good success destroying it. George Orwell is alive and well.
Unbelievable...
June 22, 2008 - 10:53 ET by BeresfordI fail to understand why the NYT story is any more "credible" than if the article had used a pseudonym and explained that they were withholding the name out of a sense of caution.
How much would it have hurt them to call him "Deuce M"? Or perhaps "Deuce 'Sulzberger'"
You would think that the Times would consider this calculus: If they are right -- but withhold the name -- the story might be slightly less compelling. If they are wrong -- and print the name -- an American might be targeted by terrorists.
Seems to me the choice would be clear. I guess that is why I don't work for the NYT.
I fail to understand why
June 22, 2008 - 11:05 ET by SMGalbraithI fail to understand why the NYT story is any more "credible" than if the article had used a pseudonym and explained that they were withholding the name out of a sense of caution.
Agreed. I don't see how the story would be lessened by the removal of the name. Or, alternatively, how the story is helped by the addition of the name.
There are lots of other quotes or details from CIA officers/personnel who are given anonymity.
Which raises the question: Was the interrogator outed/named because he refused to cooperate with the Times? Apparently, those that did cooperate were given anonymity.
My guess is that this was mostly - but not entirely - a power play by the Times to show the government that they could essentially do what they want. The fact that the chief interrogator refused to talk probably didn't help either.
In any event, to give his name and employer was uncalled for. There's no defense for it.
A CIA desk jockey, "Secret
June 22, 2008 - 11:11 ET by JerryA CIA desk jockey, "Secret Agent Plame" was outed by a journalist, Richard Armitage, and that resulted in Scooter Libby's indictment on charges of making misleading statements after being interrogated about a "crime" that he had no part in. Maybe they think it will work again and they can get Rove this time.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
If I had the money, I would
June 22, 2008 - 11:31 ET by marvlIf I had the money, I would buy the NY Times, fire everyone, and disband the paper.
Another option would be to keep it and move the entire operation to northern Greenland.
Scott Shame
June 22, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Cool ArrowIt was a day like any oter day. NYT Reporter Scott Shame was brushing his teeth when suddenly . . .
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
so it could not have happened to
June 22, 2008 - 11:38 ET by botgGail Collins?
Support our Troops
Privacy is Overrated
June 22, 2008 - 11:32 ET by third eyeThe newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and
the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees
who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who
have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to
print the name.
Translation
The newspaper recieved requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency not to print his name -- and naturally we laughed our asses off. Clearly they were unaware of our business model.
I read this article
June 22, 2008 - 11:43 ET by GregEI read this article yesterday. If the CIA requested his name not be used, then they could have easily replaced his name with "the interrogator" and the story would have been exactly the same. His name adds nothing more to the story. The NY Times goes with the motto of....."if there's any doubt, always err on the side of opposition to American interests or security"
Good idea????
June 22, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Founding_FatherThe Times's policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.
It might be a good idea to find out exactly how many times in the last 8 years the times has used "anonymous" sources, or withheld names. And what were the circumstances surrounding it. Were they all intelligence officers or sexual assault victims?
How many times do they use "washington insider" instead of using the names?
It's clear they only use names when they want to hurt America or patriots.
allow me to love
June 22, 2008 - 12:31 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America
it may be time for black ops(alleged) by the CIA inside the NYT.
someone disappears-who would care?
just for the weekend at GITMO-no waterboarding-because there is no crying in spying.
Foundation For A Witch Hunt
June 22, 2008 - 12:37 ET by TrochilusThe NY Times story at least implies that, although he did not directly participate in waterboarding or other coercive techniques, he was probably aware of details about such actions having been taken by others. There was no offer of proof on that, mind you, but the implication was quite strong. In other words, the story implies that he was a willing "good cop" in the overall "good cop, bad cop" routine. Clearly, that is why the paper outed him.
And in doing so, that disgusting newspaper just painted a multi-faceted target on the guy -- actual and political. Not only has the NY Times thereby put his life -- and the lives of the members of his family, and perhaps even the company he works for -- in serious jeopardy, they have done so as a way to subject him to political exposure, which will undoubtedly now be exploited by a rapacious Congress, openly anxious to squeeze every drop of blood out of every opportunity to get at the Bush Administration, and by implication, John McCain and all Republicans up for election this year.
Unhappy that the war has been going "the wrong way" (from the NY Times point of view) they must have seen this as a way to pick the scab and get the bleeding started again over a "torture" issue. Why else name him? Or his company?
They want to sell newspapers, and the way to ensure that in this instance was to expose him to ongoing political vulnerability, virtually ensuring that his face will end up on camera, perhaps gamely trying not to answer questions.
Watch for some congressional committee to subpoena him, frog-march him in front of them, resulting in every radical Islamist bastard in the world knowing what he looks like, and demand names of operatives in order to try and establish what they will term something like a water-boarding chain of shame, leading as high up as they can go.
Who knows, it could possibly even end up being before the Barack Obama Sub-committee on European Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suddenly deciding to hold their first hearing -- perhaps because of the connection with Poland, and/or the implications for NATO of our Afghanistan policy!
Is there any doubt?
June 22, 2008 - 13:02 ET by pbthinkerWe've known, for a long time, that the NY Times is nothing more than the media wing of the Democratic Party. We also, at least some of us, assumed they were anti-American as well. For those of us who believed that, here's the proof. For those of you that thought the Times had the best interests of the country at heart, here's proof that's a lie.
I'd love it if the White House and Republicans did one more thing and told the NY Times they weren't welcome there any more. For all the raving about Valerie Plame, this is rediculous. It only shows the media for the clowns they are.
Just say, "Sorry NY Times, we're revolking your press credentials for anything, other than events that don't require a sense of responsiblity to the country, since you've proven you don't have any."
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
A Felony, According To The NY Times?
June 22, 2008 - 13:21 ET by TrochilusSay, didn't the New York Times once report, per Eric Lichtblau, their premiere expose reporter, that exposing any such identity is a serious criminal act?
Let's see . . . here it is.
"Disclosing the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer is a felony under federal law."
Yes, I think they did. Must have gone through fact-checking, no?
Exactlamundo!
June 22, 2008 - 13:21 ET by Intellectual HonestyIt might be a good idea to find out exactly how many times in the last 8 years the times has used "anonymous" sources, or withheld names. And what were the circumstances surrounding it. Were they all intelligence officers or sexual assault victims?
It would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting to have the NYT justify the unnecessary publishing of the agent's name on the premise that the disclosure "was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article."
This is the same New York Times that supports blanket media immunity that would allow them to impugn at will but never have to reveal sources thus allowing them to impugn all that much more.
This is the same New York Times that believes that a rape accuser's name should not be released but if it is later revealed that the accuser knowingly made false accusations the debunked accusers name still should not be published.
NY Slimes breaks intelligence agents act - NO DOUBT
June 22, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Jack BauerThe New York Times is either ignorant, or merely could less, in its stated argument that Mr Martinez has never worked under cover, and is therefore, not covered by the act with protects "covert" US intelligence agents..
This is spectacularly INCORRECT. This is what they claim...
I quote directly...
Now... FOLLOW THIS...
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured March 1, 2003, or 5 years and 3 months, 3 weeks ago.
He is and was held OUTSIDE the United States.
He was interrogated OUTSIDE the United States.
Therefore Mr Martinez was serving as an Intelligence Officer outside the United States less than 5 years ago, and is therefore covered by the Act.
>>>its policy "is to
June 22, 2008 - 13:35 ET by seanrobins>>>its policy "is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely,"
The New York Times accomplishes an incredible sleight of hand here by which persons it labels as "subjects" and which it labels as "sources."
Is this guy (who interrogtored KSM) a subject - i.e., doing his job, minding his business, NOT talking to the Times - then IDENTIFY him.
Is someone else - i.e., not doing their job, violating the law and their oath of secrecy, etc., TALKING to the Times and betraying their country - then PROTECT their identities to the exclusion of all else.
I just love how the Times has over the years re-defined "journalism"
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
>>>After discussion with
June 22, 2008 - 13:43 ET by seanrobins>>>After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover...
The administration has got to stop playing games with the MSM and in particular the New York Times. It should be made clear that our government does not make "requests" of organizations such as the Times, it TELLS the Times how it will be. (At least, it SHOULD tell the Times how it will be.)
The more-arrogant-than-thou New York Times is out of control, and needs to be reigned in when it comes to national security issues, and its conspiring with treasonous functionaries in government.
None of the treasonous slimeballs in government go out on the street and randomly disclose classified information. An outlet, a conduit is necessary to facilities the leaking. By making it known that they are available to facilitate this treasonous activity, the Times is "creating" the market for the treson, and is every bit as responsible as the leaker.
The Times is not simply sitting on the sidelines, and getting contacted by tratorous leakers accidentally or coincidentally. The Times is an active participant in the treason, should be treated as such, and should be prosecuted as such.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Shades of Daniel Ellsburg.
June 22, 2008 - 14:16 ET by SickofLibsShades of Daniel Ellsburg. Just another in a long string of 'outings' by the NYT, you know, for the good of the country.
A reminder...
June 22, 2008 - 14:41 ET by BritcomSource: Baxter Bulletin (AR)
Treason: The New York Times seems to think they are untouchable in their crumbling ivory tower.
---
Lets fix the Supreme Court for good!
Communist vs. Statist '08
Prosecute the NYT for treason.
June 22, 2008 - 15:21 ET by wdhorningProsecute the NYT for treason.
Freedom of the press is not freedom to do damage to the USA in the militaristic sense. Setting up US employees for assasination amounts to treason, in my mind.
You have my vote!
June 22, 2008 - 16:12 ET by ThalpyYou have my vote! Is there any question about allegiance and the NYT?
When is that
June 22, 2008 - 17:01 ET by bigtimerWhen is that paper/writers/publisher going to be prosecuted?
I am so sick of the JD doing NOTHING!
When are the repubs as a voice of one going to start screaming from the rooftops and using the msm as their voice...Fox matters and Fox would televise this..if someone would just do this...with the President leading the way!
It is treason...it is outrageous!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Such Irony
June 22, 2008 - 17:41 ET by Wildcatter1980The NYTimes calls for tracking terrorist funding, but it exposes the program doing exactly that.
The NYTimes says it only rarely keeps secret the names of sources, yet didn't Judith Miller go to jail for refusing to reveal her sources in the Valerie Plame case?
The NYTimes seems to think the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative is a serious offense, yet tries to rationalize "leaking" the identity of a CIA interrogator in this article despite the greater potential of his being a target of unscrupulous or unbalanced individuals.
The NYTimes continues to lose circulation forcing it to lay off employees yet is critical of the New Media (bloggers, et al) or anyone who opposes their evident agenda.
The irony is that the old gray lady with all it's investigative prowess cannot figure out what their real problems are.
What I'd like to see
June 23, 2008 - 10:17 ET by c5thenIs the NYT and the senior editor indicted on treason and jeapordizing National Security charges. They probably couldn't get a conviction, so I'll settle for the NYT to be blackballed from all CIA/FBI/Pentagon press conferences and press releases for two full years from the date of the story.
Do you think that would get their attention?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.