NY Times outs CIA agent

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus people, this thread is like flypaper for idiots. They did nothing wrong here and comparing this to Valerie Plame simply shows that the person doing the comparing doesn't know anything about the issue. More desperate attempts to hate the NY Times.

Sad really.

They may not have done anything criminal, but that does not excuse their willingness to put Mr. Martinez and his family in more danger than was otherwise necessary.

Mr. Martinez was not a COVERT agent. Therefore there was no reason not to release his name.
Plame WAS a covert agent.
Fail again at the anti-NY TIMES hating.

Trust me, I know the fucking difference.

OVERT collectors are just as likely as COVERT collectors to be in danger while in the field, or from retaliation -- especially in such a high-profile case.

The nature of their collection activities is STILL highly dangerous and sensitive.

You simply don't know wtf you're talking about... but hey, that's never stopped you before! :roll:

Printing his name was simply uncalled for.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's hilarious is to see the clear partisan hackery present in the responses from the far-left side of the room. Predictable, yet still disgusting.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and your flip-flopping is on display for all to see.

Vague cliche generator or Pabster?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
... months AFTER the Bushwhackos outed her as a CIA operative. :roll:

Guess she wasn't exactly fearing for her life, eh?

Guess she wasn't exactly unknown or not the center of a breaking news story at the time, either, eh? :roll:

Guess you can't don't want to consider the possible collateral damage to other intelligence assets resulting from the disclosure of her identity as a covert agent, eh? :thumbsdown:

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
... months AFTER the Bushwhackos outed her as a CIA operative. :roll:

Guess she wasn't exactly fearing for her life, eh?

The damage was done. Appearing on the cover of a magazine would make little difference at that point to any intelligence agencies that wished to target her. She could either try to vanish or live her life as is. She must have realized she couldn't use government help to vanish as it wouldn't protect her. What choice would one of us make in the same situation I wonder.

The real world impact is any fake information she may have provided over the years would be now questioned and she has hinted that those she worked with abroad were the ones who suffered.

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus people, this thread is like flypaper for idiots. They did nothing wrong here and comparing this to Valerie Plame simply shows that the person doing the comparing doesn't know anything about the issue. More desperate attempts to hate the NY Times.

Sad really.

They may not have done anything criminal, but that does not excuse their willingness to put Mr. Martinez and his family in more danger than was otherwise necessary.

Mr. Martinez was not a COVERT agent. Therefore there was no reason not to release his name.
Plame WAS a covert agent.
Fail again at the anti-NY TIMES hating.

Trust me, I know the fucking difference.

OVERT collectors are just as likely as COVERT collectors to be in danger while in the field, or from retaliation -- especially in such a high-profile case.

The nature of their collection activities is STILL highly dangerous and sensitive.

You simply don't know wtf you're talking about... but hey, that's never stopped you before! :roll:

Printing his name was simply uncalled for.

If you have worked in intelligence, at any capacity, then I question your competency.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Kuragami

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus people, this thread is like flypaper for idiots. They did nothing wrong here and comparing this to Valerie Plame simply shows that the person doing the comparing doesn't know anything about the issue. More desperate attempts to hate the NY Times.

Sad really.

They may not have done anything criminal, but that does not excuse their willingness to put Mr. Martinez and his family in more danger than was otherwise necessary.

Mr. Martinez was not a COVERT agent. Therefore there was no reason not to release his name.
Plame WAS a covert agent.
Fail again at the anti-NY TIMES hating.

Trust me, I know the fucking difference.

OVERT collectors are just as likely as COVERT collectors to be in danger while in the field, or from retaliation -- especially in such a high-profile case.

The nature of their collection activities is STILL highly dangerous and sensitive.

You simply don't know wtf you're talking about... but hey, that's never stopped you before! :roll:

Printing his name was simply uncalled for.

If you have worked in intelligence, at any capacity, then I question your competency.

Since you appeared to agree with me in your reply that included one of my replies, a serious question -- Who are you to question palehorse's post? You're unknown, here.

Do you know what he does or his experience that qualifies him to comment? Are you involved in the American intelligence community? Give us any info about yourself that would give us reason to believe you're qualified to criticize palehorse or any other member before you take shots at them.

Just asking to get some real idea of your credibility to post that flame.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus people, this thread is like flypaper for idiots. They did nothing wrong here and comparing this to Valerie Plame simply shows that the person doing the comparing doesn't know anything about the issue. More desperate attempts to hate the NY Times.

Sad really.

They may not have done anything criminal, but that does not excuse their willingness to put Mr. Martinez and his family in more danger than was otherwise necessary.

So are we supposed to not allow anyone's name on TV or in the paper?

Is it wrong to give a soldiers name on TV if he gets interviewed? OR a regular government employee?

This seems to be an overreaction by everyone.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus people, this thread is like flypaper for idiots. They did nothing wrong here and comparing this to Valerie Plame simply shows that the person doing the comparing doesn't know anything about the issue. More desperate attempts to hate the NY Times.

Sad really.

They may not have done anything criminal, but that does not excuse their willingness to put Mr. Martinez and his family in more danger than was otherwise necessary.

So are we supposed to not allow anyone's name on TV or in the paper?

Is it wrong to give a soldiers name on TV if he gets interviewed? OR a regular government employee?

This seems to be an overreaction by everyone.

As much as right wingers love to bash Communist China, they really find some aspects of it admirable.

Controlled media and killing college students in the town square are things Republicans love.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Jesus people, this thread is like flypaper for idiots. They did nothing wrong here and comparing this to Valerie Plame simply shows that the person doing the comparing doesn't know anything about the issue. More desperate attempts to hate the NY Times.

Sad really.

They may not have done anything criminal, but that does not excuse their willingness to put Mr. Martinez and his family in more danger than was otherwise necessary.

I see what you're saying, but intelligence concerns CAN'T be the only concerns ever taken into account...especially not when you're talking about a newspaper trying to report on a story. There seems to be this idea that everyone in the country should, first and foremost, serve the government and the intelligence community. And while I will agree that there are very real concerns, suborning the media to the CIA is a pretty dumb idea. Reporters need to be able to give details to lend credibility to their article.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the CIA employee is in a crappy position...but I wish that people would remember that the media plays an important role in our democracy as well, and that allowing the government to dictate what the media may or may not print is probably a pretty bad idea.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse
...

Printing his name was simply uncalled for.

Don't you think it hurts the credibility of a news organization if all they have are unnamed sources and subjects in their news?

 

[Rainsford]

Also, it's a little hard to take people seriously when they refer to a CIA analyst as an "agent". I can't help but wonder what qualifies someone to get their panties in a bunch over the NY Times "outing" this guy when their main source of knowledge about the intelligence community clearly comes from watching 'Alias'. Palehorse is worth listening to on this topic, even if I disagree with him...but honestly, aren't the rest of you guys just looking for an excuse to jump all over the New York Times?

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[AndrewR]

The issue is not the same as Plame's identity, which was an overblown issue from everything I have read about her since her covert days were over. Should the leak have happened? Probably not, but there are more issues involved in that "scandal" than simply the supposed outing of a "covert operative", which she wasn't.

In any event, the issue with Mr. Martinez is his association with the interrogation of the most senior AQ member we have captured. KSM is a BIG FISH, and his capture was monstrous for us and devastating for AQ. Revenge for that success would sit well with senior AQ leaders and would be a shot in the arm for AQ worldwide.

That being said, CIA folks are weird about having their identities revealed in any way. They also don't play well with others and are somewhat annoying to deal with, but I digress.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Also, it's a little hard to take people seriously when they refer to a CIA analyst as an "agent". I can't help but wonder what qualifies someone to get their panties in a bunch over the NY Times "outing" this guy when their main source of knowledge about the intelligence community clearly comes from watching 'Alias'. Palehorse is worth listening to on this topic, even if I disagree with him...but honestly, aren't the rest of you guys just looking for an excuse to jump all over the New York Times?

It's an attempt to rehab their heroes using the "They're just as bad!" "everybody does it!" meme...

And a truly desperate one, at that. Which follows from the likelihood of their taking an epic shellacking in November, so they're pulling out all the stops, throwing in the kitchen sink and whatever giant stinking pile of dung they can fling in the path of the steamroller headed their way...

 

[yllus]

Mr. Martinez, a career analyst at the agency until his retirement a few years ago

Clearly him being named isn't going to affect current investigations.

I don't really buy the revenge thing. It's a little too Clear And Present Danger to me, I guess - not something I could see happening outside of a film studio. Considering the very limited assets a group like Al Qaeda has, I don't really see them expending time, money and human operatives to take a shot at a retired interrogator.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Should the leak have happened? Probably not, but there are more issues involved in that "scandal" than simply the supposed outing of a "covert operative", which she wasn't.

According to CIA documents, your reality check just bounced.

Plame was ?covert? agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

Undercover travel

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."
.
.
(continues)

 

[jpeyton]

He doesn't work for the CIA anymore; he's a contractor in the public sector now.

But I agree, The NYTimes should know better. Only the President and Vice President can out CIA agents and get away with it

 

[Thump553]

Pabster's vehement denials to the contrary, Plame was a covert agent. Being on a magazine cover has nothing to do with the covert nature of her AGENT status. The outing of Plame though, was apparently made legal by Cheney declassifying the info about her status-for purely political retaliation purposes.

The interrogator OTOH, as repeatedly mentioned above, was never a covert agent-so that particular statute doesn't apply. So again, not illegal activity.

In Plame's case, the very top levels of the government destroyed a agent's career not for the interests of the country, nor of the agency nor of the agent-but for purely selfish political reasons.

For the life of me, I don't see how the identity of the interrogator was newsworthy and I think the NYT performed badly and did a misservice by disclosing it.

So, in the end, we have two entities doing disclosures while perhaps not illegal, are certainly wrong and done for shameful purposes.

 

[jonks]

Not under cover, what's the big deal? Since when did everyone working for the CIA get some right to be anonymous? It's exactly when workers in an organization feel protected from all exposure that they commit the worst sins. He might be "targeted by terrorists?" 1. Bullshit. 2. I live in NY. Welcome to the fucking club.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Kuragami

Originally posted by: palehorse
Trust me, I know the fucking difference.

OVERT collectors are just as likely as COVERT collectors to be in danger while in the field, or from retaliation -- especially in such a high-profile case.

The nature of their collection activities is STILL highly dangerous and sensitive.

You simply don't know wtf you're talking about... but hey, that's never stopped you before! :roll:

Printing his name was simply uncalled for.

If you have worked in intelligence, at any capacity, then I question your competency.

What exactly did I write there that would justify your remark? If you have an issue with something I wrote, drop the insults and articulate wtf you're talking about.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's hilarious is to see the clear partisan hackery present in the responses from the far-left side of the room. Predictable, yet still disgusting.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and your flip-flopping is on display for all to see.

So you're now saying that outting Plame was wrong?
huh...imagine that.

FWIW, while this guy apparently wasn't a covert op and was currently retired, his identity SHOULD NOT have been published. While it may not be illegal, it's certainly tacky.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
He doesn't work for the CIA anymore; he's a contractor in the public sector now.

But I agree, The NYTimes should know better. Only the President and Vice President can out CIA agents and get away with it

"Contractor in the public sector" is an oxymoron.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: jpeyton
He doesn't work for the CIA anymore; he's a contractor in the public sector now.

But I agree, The NYTimes should know better. Only the President and Vice President can out CIA agents and get away with it

"Contractor in the public sector" is an oxymoron.

actually, the best way to describe his job (and mine) would be "he works as a consultant to the federal government."

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: jpeyton
He doesn't work for the CIA anymore; he's a contractor in the public sector now.

But I agree, The NYTimes should know better. Only the President and Vice President can out CIA agents and get away with it

"Contractor in the public sector" is an oxymoron.

actually, the best way to describe his job (and mine) would be "he works as a consultant to the federal government."

And you're posting this info on a public board that can be easily traced back to you...

Why are you disclosing information this way?

 

[brxndxn]

I think the NY Times is one of the only papers left that can be somewhat trusted.. However, that will eventually change with the purchase by Rupert Murdoch - an evil, twisted individual.