| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| NYT explains why it's okay for THEM to reveal a CIA agent's name | |
| 2008-06-22 | |
| EditorsÂ’ Note 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 TimesÂ’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.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 I have a question that is sort of related: Has anybody seen an article or news report that examines Scotty "Madman" McStabbers' testimony? I have seen only snippets of the testimony and I can't understand what the hubub was all about? "He wasn't in meetings and guesses that there were crimes committed in those meeting because he was not privy to them." Hell I could write taht book too. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-06-22 18:21 |
| #6 If the staff of the NYT felt personally threatened this would never have been an issue. Witness their reaction to the cartoon wars. |
| Posted by: Big Speaper6463 2008-06-22 18:15 |
| #5 Well, I guess the fact that NYT has been on the receiving end of leaks from individuals in the CIA hasn't bought any quid pro quo here. Maybe if you're actually doing work instead of playing political games you're exempt from whatever understanding they have. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-06-22 17:18 |
| #4 I can't even read this.. the NYT and all their ilk deserve a horrible end. They makes me furious. |
| Posted by: RD 2008-06-22 14:47 |
| #3 Well, I guess the fact that NYT has been on the receiving end of leaks from individuals in the CIA hasn't bought any quid pro quo here. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-06-22 09:56 |
| #2 The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. Um, I really doubt the 'seriously' part. |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-06-22 09:26 |
| #1 The TimesÂ’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. ... according to an unnamed source. Liars. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-06-22 09:04 |