New York Times Outs CIA Operative

[red states rule]

The same NY Times that attacked Pres Bush and Karl Rove for "outting" a CIA operative, actually did out a real CIA operative

Will Dems be demanding an investagation? Will they demand the leaker be brought to justice?

The silence is deafening


New York Times Outs CIA Operative
By Mick Wright | June 22, 2008 - 10:12 ET

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."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mick-wright/2008/06/22/new-york-times-outs-cia-operative

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Yurt]

to truly embrace all of the liberal platform, such as the NY times, you truly intellectually bankrupt and hypocrisy is your middle name

[manu1959]

outing plame was bad because she was against bush.....outing this guy is good cuz he was torturing freedom fighters.....

please try to keep up.......

[hjmick]

Program!! Get Yar Programs Herea!! Programs!! You Can't Know The Playas If Ya Don't Have A Program!!

[gabosaurus]

Can you find this reported in a legitimate news source? Newsbusters is a reliable as the Enquirer.

[hjmick]

Can you find this reported in a legitimate news source? Newsbusters is a reliable as the Enquirer.

He did link the New York Times article itself. Anyone capable of reading and comprehending the English could find and read the Editor's Note, it is on the first page of the article.


Editors' Note: June 22, 2008

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.



As if it makes a difference to the crazies that Martinez "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."

[gabosaurus]

How can you "out" someone who is already known?

[hjmick]

Now now, let's not play semantic games or be deliberately obtuse. While Martinez may not have been a field operative or undercover, it's not as if the CIA publishes a list of people involved in the interrogations. Until the Times refused a perfectly reasonable request by the CIA, no one outside of Langley knew of Martinez's involvement in interrogating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Until the Times article hit the stands, Martinez and his job were known only to his bosses an coworkers.

[gabosaurus]

Obviously he was known to others. How else did the information get out?

[manu1959]

Obviously he was known to others. How else did the information get out?

so do believe valarie plame was outed?

[PostmodernProphet]

How can you "out" someone who is already known?

what was your response when we asked the same question about Plame?......

[red states rule]

Now now, let's not play semantic games or be deliberately obtuse. While Martinez may not have been a field operative or undercover, it's not as if the CIA publishes a list of people involved in the interrogations. Until the Times refused a perfectly reasonable request by the CIA, no one outside of Langley knew of Martinez's involvement in interrogating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Until the Times article hit the stands, Martinez and his job were known only to his bosses an coworkers.

Gabby does not care about this CIA operative being outted - he violated the rights of terrorists - so he deserves whatever he gets

[retiredman]

was this Martinez guy ever "covert"? DId he had a cover story?

[CockySOB]

How can you "out" someone who is already known?

How true. Valerie Plame was known to be working for the CIA so how could anyone "out" her?

[red states rule]

Was the interrogator outed because he refused to talk with the DNC Times, and would not say how sorry he was for doing his job?

[retiredman]

Was the interrogator outed because he refused to talk with the DNC Times, and would not say how sorry he was for doing his job?

you still have not answered my question: was he covert?

[red states rule]

you still have not answered my question: was he covert?

Plame was not covert, yet you guys had a fit even though her being a CIA employee was common knowledge

This guy was singled out for partisan reasons

[retiredman]

Plame was not covert, yet you guys had a fit even though her being a CIA employee was common knowledge

This guy was singled out for partisan reasons

actually, plame was covert, but you didn't answer my question.

[red states rule]

actually, plame was covert, but you didn't answer my question.

She was not covert, and did not fit the definition according to the law. But as usual your double standards are showing through very clear

[retiredman]

She was not covert, and did not fit the definition according to the law. But as usual your double standards are showing through very clear


I disagree. I think she had a cover story... and had worked covertly overseas within the time frame of the law...

but still.... you refuse to answer MY question.

[Hagbard Celine]

Seems to me that Martinez was not a covert operative, unlike Plame. Do you not see the difference? Of course you don't because acknowledging the truth would interfere with your ranting about the "vast liberal conspiracy" to destroy America :tinfoil::rolleyes:

[red states rule]

Seems to me that Martinez was not a covert operative, unlike Plame. Do you not see the difference? Of course you don't because acknowledging the truth would interfere with your ranting about the "vast liberal conspiracy" to destroy America :tinfoil::rolleyes:

Plame was NOT covert under the law as written

Libs seem to ignore facts since they get in the way of their rants against the Pres Bush, and the people doing their job to protect the US from terrorists

[Hagbard Celine]

Plame was NOT covert under the law as written

Libs seem to ignore facts since they get in the way of their rants against the Pres Bush, and the people doing their job to protect the US from terrorists

Except that you're wrong. She was an undercover operative. :rolleyes:

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Can't wait to see how you deny this. :rolleyes:

[retiredman]

Plame was NOT covert under the law as written


I disagree. the CIA, however, did disagree with that interpretation or they would not have asked for the DoJ investigation in the first place!:laugh2:

when will you answer MY question?

[red states rule]

I disagree. the CIA, however, did disagree with that interpretation or they would not have asked for the DoJ investigation in the first place!:laugh2:

when will you answer MY question?

Yet when it is a real operative who did the interrogation of the terrorist, libs have no problem

Maybe that is wjhy the DNC Times leaked his identity - he violated the rights of the terrorist

[retiredman]

Yet when it is a real operative who did the interrogation of the terrorist, libs have no problem

Maybe that is wjhy the DNC Times leaked his identity - he violated the rights of the terrorist

why can't you answer my questions?


was he covert?

[Hagbard Celine]

Yet when it is a real operative who did the interrogation of the terrorist, libs have no problem

Maybe that is wjhy the DNC Times leaked his identity - he violated the rights of the terrorist

He's not a covert operative. His employment is public knowledge mo-mo.

According to the New York Times Martinez still works out of the CIA, but as a contract employee with Mitchell & Jessen Associates, "a consulting company run by former military psychologists who advised the C.I.A. on the use of harsh tactics in the secret program."[2]

The CIA hired Mitchell & Jessen to provide Martinez to train CIA officers in the techniques he learned at the CIA in tracking individuals through their paper and electronic records

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuce_Martinez

This "story" is blatant pandering from the conservative blogosphere=pure bullsh*t.

[red states rule]

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."



It was a hit piece designed to harass him

Niot surprised the Dems are turning a blind eye to this

[CockySOB]

I disagree. the CIA, however, did disagree with that interpretation or they would not have asked for the DoJ investigation in the first place!:laugh2:

when will you answer MY question?

And did the DoJ determine that Plame was covert as a matter of law which would entitle her to the full protection of Federal law? Um. Hmmmm. Nope.

Your opinion (and the opinion of others as well) are irrelevant without a ruling of law.

But please, now you can begin your rantings about a corrupt DoJ which served the whims of Bush the Evil and Darth Cheney. I know you want to, so by all means, have at.

[midcan5]

The naivete of the replies above astound. First the interrogator was not undercover and second, MSM is conservative, the myth that media is liberal has been proven too often to be the myth it is.

[Gaffer]

The naivete of the replies above astound. First the interrogator was not undercover and second, MSM is conservative, the myth that media is liberal has been proven too often to be the myth it is.

The belief that the media is conservative is only held by the ones that are so far left they can't see the right. Your one of them.

[red states rule]

The belief that the media is conservative is only held by the ones that are so far left they can't see the right. Your one of them.

To nuts like midcan, Chris Matthews and Keith Overbite (the tax cheat) are conservatives

[Gaffer]

To nuts like midcan, Chris Matthews and Keith Overbite (the tax cheat) are conservatives

When you think about it, that really is hilarious. :laugh2: