NY Times outs CIA agent

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: 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.

You didn't articulate the difference and there is a big one.

Those who work openly such as an attaché to an Embassy have blanket cover and can work indefinitely without fear or retaliation from inside or outside an Embassy and should they vanish there will be official questions and it's quite public since they are officials of a government. The most a legitimate government can do without serious risk is kick them out, which is what Chavez did.

A NOC can simply be disappeared and that's the end of it. A family will not be able to get answers without something serious taking place in the country that changes the situation enough that you can find out. That's what happened to a member of my family a long time ago. I never meet him and he died in his prime long before I was ever born. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: 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.

My family has suffered a lot and was, probably still is, black listed due to what happend to a family member who was a NOC. My family never had any US citizens, that I know of. I don't know the official term for my family member's intelligence status at the time so NOC will do.

I'm not sure how much damage it would do, if any, if I would provide more details than I did in my above post so I will decline.

If you wish me to not take part in this forum I will leave.

 

[Craig234]

For those interested, James Bamford does a nice description of NOC's in his "Body of Evidence".

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 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?

By that, I did not mean to imply or say that my job is/was the same as his -- I am not, nor have I ever been, a CIA interrogator, or even an employee of the CIA. I just meant that the description of my civilian job would be the same as his -- as in, "a consultant to the federal government."

We were discussing jpeyton's choice of words, nothing more.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
You didn't articulate the difference and there is a big one.

Those who work openly such as an attaché to an Embassy have blanket cover and can work indefinitely without fear or retaliation from inside or outside an Embassy and should they vanish there will be official questions and it's quite public since they are officials of a government. The most a legitimate government can do without serious risk is kick them out, which is what Chavez did.

A NOC can simply be disappeared and that's the end of it. A family will not be able to get answers without something serious taking place in the country that changes the situation enough that you can find out. That's what happened to a member of my family a long time ago. I never meet him and he died in his prime long before I was ever born. I'll leave it at that.

I've never met a former collector, overt or otherwise, who was "without fear of retaliation." That said, your main problem is that you're wrongfully applying Cold-war era thinking to our modern efforts against terrorism. (Can you point me to an Al Qaeda embassy? )

There are certainly nation-states wherein your description would be somewhat accurate; but, when it comes to our counter-terrorism efforts, those old-school assumptions and rules no longer apply... terrorists play with a different set of rules, or none at all -- IOW, "overt status" doesn't mean jackshit to them.

There are many overt collectors with real-life prices on their heads.

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: 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?

By that, I did not mean to imply or say that my job is/was the same as his -- I am not, nor have I ever been, a CIA interrogator, or even an employee of the CIA. I just meant that the description of my civilian job would be the same as his -- as in, "a consultant to the federal government."

We were discussing jpeyton's choice of words, nothing more.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
You didn't articulate the difference and there is a big one.

Those who work openly such as an attaché to an Embassy have blanket cover and can work indefinitely without fear or retaliation from inside or outside an Embassy and should they vanish there will be official questions and it's quite public since they are officials of a government. The most a legitimate government can do without serious risk is kick them out, which is what Chavez did.

A NOC can simply be disappeared and that's the end of it. A family will not be able to get answers without something serious taking place in the country that changes the situation enough that you can find out. That's what happened to a member of my family a long time ago. I never meet him and he died in his prime long before I was ever born. I'll leave it at that.

I've never met a former collector, overt or otherwise, who was "without fear of retaliation." That said, your main problem is that you're wrongfully applying Cold-war era thinking to our modern efforts against terrorism. (Can you point me to an Al Qaeda embassy? )

There are certainly nation-states wherein your description would be somewhat accurate; but, when it comes to our counter-terrorism efforts, those old-school assumptions and rules no longer apply... terrorists play with a different set of rules, or none at all -- IOW, "overt status" doesn't mean jackshit to them.

There are many overt collectors with real-life prices on their heads.

I understand where you are coming from, but it is the intelligence agencies themselves that place a status on their agents. While what you said is certainly true the failure lies with the agencies and the laws in place that do not protect their own agents from the threat posed by terrorists.

If terrorists were a threat to intelligence agents and their families both at home and abroad then why do the agencies not take it seriously? Why does your own government not act to shield them from harm?

If my view is "Cold-war era thinking" then it's lock step with intelligence agencies and governments that operate around the world and fighting terrorists. Including yours.

 

[ProfJohn]

Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

The government was so concerned with the threats against him that they provided him with security for a bit.

Now the chances of some guy coming after this CIA guy are very slim, but why take the chances? It was foolish of the NY Times to use his name and it really served no purpose, they could have given him an alias and no one would have cared.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

The government was so concerned with the threats against him that they provided him with security for a bit.

Now the chances of some guy coming after this CIA guy are very slim, but why take the chances? It was foolish of the NY Times to use his name and it really served no purpose, they could have given him an alias and no one would have cared.

The difference is between having a consistent policy, and grabbing an anecdote to make a big deal out of it.

But the same people who screamed so loud to defend the outing of Valerie Plame *for petty politics against a whistle-blower* are screaming murder how wrong this is. It's hypocrisy.

You could argue that this person's name shouldn't have been published, but there's a whole set of examples that are inconsistent with that in the media that should be addressed as well then.

Without that, this is nothing more than the right ignoring the reasons for this decision in order to make a partisan-motivated and unfair attack on the NYT, because it's not right-wing enough.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Apologists in 3...2...1...

Start the congressional investigations as soon as possilbe. Lets find out what happened and punish any law breakers.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

The government was so concerned with the threats against him that they provided him with security for a bit.

Now the chances of some guy coming after this CIA guy are very slim, but why take the chances? It was foolish of the NY Times to use his name and it really served no purpose, they could have given him an alias and no one would have cared.

Anti terrorism work, is that what they're calling Iran Contra nowadays?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

The government was so concerned with the threats against him that they provided him with security for a bit.

Now the chances of some guy coming after this CIA guy are very slim, but why take the chances? It was foolish of the NY Times to use his name and it really served no purpose, they could have given him an alias and no one would have cared.

That is the WORST possible example you could have come up with. Ollie North participated in something the public had every right to know about and he went on to turn his "celebrity" into a job being a professional assclown on Fox News. Is avoiding THAT horrible outcome worth muzzling the press? Because despite what you might think, accuracy and detail in a story (yes, including the names of people involved) is crucial.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

The government was so concerned with the threats against him that they provided him with security for a bit.

Now the chances of some guy coming after this CIA guy are very slim, but why take the chances? It was foolish of the NY Times to use his name and it really served no purpose, they could have given him an alias and no one would have cared.

You insult this guy by comparing him to Oliver North. North was a traitor to this country and it's Constitution.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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.

Exactly.

Plame's covert career was over when her name was announced and she was never in any personal danger.

This guy however worked with terrorists and could easily be made a target by some terrorist seeking revenge.

It was stupid of the times to release his name, especially when they could have given him an alias and not changed the story one bit.

I can't believe all of the outrage and the bullshit responses from an article about someone that wasn't and never was covert and trying to claim that it is the same as an article that names not only a covert agent but the front company that was used and completely destroyed by naming her.

Secondly, I can't believe that not a single person actually posted the article in which he was named for contextual support:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: The interrogator who made him talk

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 1:37AM BST 23/06/2008

A CIA interrogator developed such a rapport with the mastermind of the September 11 attacks that he not only gave up vast amounts of information about al Qa'eda but even began writing poems for his wife.

Deuce Martinez, a softly-spoken narcotics analyst reassigned to counter-terrorism, astonished colleagues with the effectiveness of his "good cop" routine in questioning Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Security sources told the New York Times that Mohammed, the self-confessed chief planner of al-Qa'eda's September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, revealed little information under torture until Mr Martinez managed to befriend him.

Mr Martinez had no experience in interrogation techniques and spoke no Arabic. He reportedly turned down a CIA offer of training in waterboarding - the controversial interrogation technique which simulates drowning.

Speaking quietly and patiently, and sometimes bringing his prisoner snacks such as dates, Mr Martinez was brought in after harsher interrogation techniques had been used on Mohammed, an American-educated engineer.

"They'd have long talks about religion", comparing notes between Islam and Mr Martinez's Catholicism, a CIA officer told the New York Times. "He wrote poems to Deuce's wife." Mr Martinez would listen to Mohammed's despair that he would probably never see his children again and his complaints about his living conditions, in particular his lack of a view.

Their relationship progressed to the stage that - according to Mr Martinez - Mohammed would offer key information unvolunteered.

This included his claim to have killed Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal correspondent kidnapped in Pakistan, which Mr Martinez told colleagues came out of the blue.

Mr Martinez was a specialist in analysing computer data on drug shipments but, aged 36, was moved to the CIA's counter-terrorism operation in Islamabad in 2002.

Intelligence chiefs struggling with their inexperience in dealing with an organisation such as al-Qa'eda, had concluded that searching for drug lords was not that different to looking for terrorist leaders.

After his capture, Mohammed cooperated sporadically with his captors, who believed that he was often giving incorrect information.

However, he talked most freely to Mr Martinez. Colleagues noted that they had a certain amount in common - they were a similar age, they both went to universities in the American South, they were both religious and they were both fathers.

The poetic "tributes" to Mr Martinez's wife, scribbled in ungrammatical English, were intended as a mark of respect to the interrogator, said a colleague.

The intelligence provided by Mohammed was reflected in the report of the official 9/11 commission, which listed 60 occasions on which he provided facts about al-Q'aeda.

Mr Martinez has since left the CIA but now works for a consultancy that advises the agency on tracking terrorists.

If anything, the NYT saved this man's life by painting such a glowing, caring, understanding and respectful picture of this man towards his captive.

Just an FYI to all of the Chicken Littles out there.....make sure that the sky is falling before claiming that it it. If you keep on doing it when there is no cause, when you are right and it does start to drop, no one is going to believe you.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

The government was so concerned with the threats against him that they provided him with security for a bit.

Now the chances of some guy coming after this CIA guy are very slim, but why take the chances? It was foolish of the NY Times to use his name and it really served no purpose, they could have given him an alias and no one would have cared.

You insult this guy by comparing him to Oliver North. North was a traitor to this country and it's Constitution.

Indeed. Ollie should have been charged with treason and executed, however, he did take (most of) the fall over the Iran-Contra crimes and diverted attention from the biggest ass-clown in the whole circus...Ronnie (I must have been out of the loop) Rayguns.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Some of us may remember that Ollie North had real life death threats against him for his anti-terrorism work in the 80s.

I remember Ollie North. Ollie North is a fucking traitor who should still be rotting in a cell for selling arms to Iran, and giving the money to the Nicaraguan Contras, both of which were illegal, and both of which Ronald Reagan denied.

North was at the center of national attention during the Iran-Contra Affair, during which he was a key Reagan administration official involved in the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran. The sale of these weapons served both to encourage the release of US hostages and to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel group. Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter and his deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North secretly diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras millions of dollars in funds received from a secret deal - the sales of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran - in spite of Reagan's public pledge not to deal with the nation.

Then, since it would have been a shame to dead head empty smuggling planes back to the U.S., he loaded them with cocaine and pot to sell on American streets to raise more blood money for the Contras.

Involvement with drug trafficking

During the early and mid 1980s, Lt. Colonel North was alleged to participate in organizing the transportation of cocaine and marijuana from the various sites in Central and South America into the United States as a means of funding the Contra rebels. Congressional records show North was tasked with finding funding ?outside the CIA? after the Boland Amendment cut off funding for the Contras in October, 1984. Declassified interviews taken during Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh's investigation into Iran-Contra, as well as North?s handwritten journal entries, detail an extensive operation involving civilian and military personnel from the U.S. and various Central American countries.

On February 10, 1986, Robert Owen, North?s liaison with the Contras, wrote North regarding a plane being used to carry "humanitarian aid" to the Contras that was previously used to transport drugs. The plane belonged to the Miami-based company Vortex, which is run by Michael Palmer, one of the largest marijuana traffickers in the United States. Despite Palmer's long history of drug smuggling, Palmer receives over $300,000 from the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Aid Office (NHAO) -- an office overseen by Oliver North, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams, and CIA officer Alan Fiers -- to ferry supplies to the Contras.

North?s own handwritten journals provide valuable insight into the mechanics of the operation as well. In his journal entry for August 9, 1985, North summarizes a meeting with Owen. They discuss a plane used to transport supplies from New Orleans to Contras in Honduras. North writes: "Honduran DC-6 which is being used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug runs into U.S."

Other entries in the North Notebooks which specifically mention narcotics are:

• July 9, 1984. Call from Claridge-Call Michel re Narco Issue-RIG T 1000 Tomorrow *(QO384)-DEA Miami-Pilot went talked to Vaughn-wanted A/C (Adolfo Calero) to go *to Bolivia to p/u paste-want A/C to p/u 1500 kilos-Bud to meet w/Group (QO385)
  
• July 17, 1984. Call to Frank M-Bud Mullins Re-leak on DEA piece-Carlton Turner *(QO418) Call from-McManus, LA Times says/NSC source claims W.H. has pictures of *Borge loading cocaine in Nic. (QO416)
  
• Jan. 14, 1985. $14 million to finance came from drugs (Q1039)

Ollie North was charged with sixteen felonies and convicted on three of them. Those convictions were overturned on a technicality after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been affected by his immunized congressional testimony, NOT because he didn't do the crimes.

FUCK OLLIE NORTH! :thumbsdown: :|

 

[OrByte]

citing a source that happens to work in the CIA is not "outing" a CIA agent.

some people watch too much '24'

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I can't believe all of the outrage and the bullshit responses from an article about someone that wasn't and never was covert and trying to claim that it is the same as an article that names not only a covert agent but the front company that was used and completely destroyed by naming her.

Secondly, I can't believe that not a single person actually posted the article in which he was named for contextual support:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: The interrogator who made him talk

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 1:37AM BST 23/06/2008

A CIA interrogator developed such a rapport with the mastermind of the September 11 attacks that he not only gave up vast amounts of information about al Qa'eda but even began writing poems for his wife.

Deuce Martinez, a softly-spoken narcotics analyst reassigned to counter-terrorism, astonished colleagues with the effectiveness of his "good cop" routine in questioning Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Security sources told the New York Times that Mohammed, the self-confessed chief planner of al-Qa'eda's September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, revealed little information under torture until Mr Martinez managed to befriend him.

Mr Martinez had no experience in interrogation techniques and spoke no Arabic. He reportedly turned down a CIA offer of training in waterboarding - the controversial interrogation technique which simulates drowning.

Speaking quietly and patiently, and sometimes bringing his prisoner snacks such as dates, Mr Martinez was brought in after harsher interrogation techniques had been used on Mohammed, an American-educated engineer.

"They'd have long talks about religion", comparing notes between Islam and Mr Martinez's Catholicism, a CIA officer told the New York Times. "He wrote poems to Deuce's wife." Mr Martinez would listen to Mohammed's despair that he would probably never see his children again and his complaints about his living conditions, in particular his lack of a view.

Their relationship progressed to the stage that - according to Mr Martinez - Mohammed would offer key information unvolunteered.

This included his claim to have killed Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal correspondent kidnapped in Pakistan, which Mr Martinez told colleagues came out of the blue.

Mr Martinez was a specialist in analysing computer data on drug shipments but, aged 36, was moved to the CIA's counter-terrorism operation in Islamabad in 2002.

Intelligence chiefs struggling with their inexperience in dealing with an organisation such as al-Qa'eda, had concluded that searching for drug lords was not that different to looking for terrorist leaders.

After his capture, Mohammed cooperated sporadically with his captors, who believed that he was often giving incorrect information.

However, he talked most freely to Mr Martinez. Colleagues noted that they had a certain amount in common - they were a similar age, they both went to universities in the American South, they were both religious and they were both fathers.

The poetic "tributes" to Mr Martinez's wife, scribbled in ungrammatical English, were intended as a mark of respect to the interrogator, said a colleague.

The intelligence provided by Mohammed was reflected in the report of the official 9/11 commission, which listed 60 occasions on which he provided facts about al-Q'aeda.

Mr Martinez has since left the CIA but now works for a consultancy that advises the agency on tracking terrorists.

If anything, the NYT saved this man's life by painting such a glowing, caring, understanding and respectful picture of this man towards his captive.

Just an FYI to all of the Chicken Littles out there.....make sure that the sky is falling before claiming that it it. If you keep on doing it when there is no cause, when you are right and it does start to drop, no one is going to believe you.

After reading the article, it makes Martinez out to be a good guy, someone who was transferred into interrogation by accident and who refused to use torture tactics to get information. It even acknowledges that KSM felt a special bond, despite Martinez being one of his captors. The article offers up nothing that would appear to place Martinez in harm's way in any conceivable way, and to compare it to Plame is beyond dishonest.

 

[Fern]

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.

If the CIA asks that a person NOT be named, IMO their opinion should be respected unless you have incontrovertable evidence that their request is baseless.

And I think the CIA is in a far better position to judge whether or not a person may be exposed to danger if named; a far better position than the newspaper.

I think it important to note that this guy is still ACTIVE in anti-terrorism efforts.

Mr Martinez has since left the CIA but now works for a consultancy that advises the agency on tracking terrorists.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern

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.

If the CIA asks that a person NOT be named, IMO their opinion should be respected unless you have incontrovertable evidence that their request is baseless.

And I think the CIA is in a far better position to judge whether or not a person may be exposed to danger if named; a far better position than the newspaper.

I think it important to note that this guy is still ACTIVE in anti-terrorism efforts.

Mr Martinez has since left the CIA but now works for a consultancy that advises the agency on tracking terrorists.

Fern

what else is the CIA supposed to say?

I think given the nature and the scope of CIA's services then it is obvious that they do not condone naming any of its assets. That doesn't make them right all the time, it only makes them CYA themselves, and that is not a bad thing either...

 

[ProfJohn]

All of you people bitching about North missed the point.

The point was that Americans have been targeted by terrorists in the past. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this guy could be targeted by some terrorist in the future.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All of you people bitching about North missed the point.

The point was that Americans have been targeted by terrorists in the past. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this guy could be targeted by some terrorist in the future.

/bogeyman.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All of you people bitching about North missed the point.

The point was that Americans have been targeted by terrorists in the past. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this guy could be targeted by some terrorist in the future.

that's not what I'd call an imminent threat, but then again, the current admin doesn't seem to know or care what that means either

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

All of you people bitching about North missed the point.

The point was that Americans have been targeted by terrorists in the past. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this guy could be targeted by some terrorist in the future.

I don't disagree with you about whether the NY Times disclosure could have put Mr. Martinez in danger. Unless there was some great good served by publishing his name, it was pointless.

However, you brought up Ollie North's name, but all you did was pimp his alleged anti-terrorism work. I'm not suprised that you forgot to note his PRO-terrorist work, shipping arms to the very Iranians who were holding American hostages and sending money to the Contras and smuggling drugs from Latin America to sell to Americans for profit, all of which were illegal.

If you're going to bring him up to praise him, it's only right to keep it in perspective.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But the same people who screamed so loud to defend the outing of Valerie Plame *for petty politics against a whistle-blower* are screaming murder how wrong this is. It's hypocrisy.

And interestingly enough, the same people who came screaming on the behalf of Plame see nothing wrong with the NY Times revealing the identity of Martinez.

So for the far right:
Revealing of Plame-Justified given her husband's decision to enter the political fray on the war in Iraq.
Revealing of Martinez-Irresponsible journalism.

And for the far left:
Revealing of Plame-Political reprisal from the Bush Administration for her husband's justified criticism of our march to war in Iraq.
Revealing of Martinez-Responsible journalism.

 

[manowar821]

Gotta love people who support elitism, authoritarianism, and the "need to know" mentality.

The people who support secrets.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

But the same people who screamed so loud to defend the outing of Valerie Plame *for petty politics against a whistle-blower* are screaming murder how wrong this is. It's hypocrisy.

And interestingly enough, the same people who came screaming on the behalf of Plame see nothing wrong with the NY Times revealing the identity of Martinez.

So for the far right:
Revealing of Plame-Justified given her husband's decision to enter the political fray on the war in Iraq.
Revealing of Martinez-Irresponsible journalism.

And for the far left:
Revealing of Plame-Political reprisal from the Bush Administration for her husband's justified criticism of our march to war in Iraq.
Revealing of Martinez-Responsible journalism.

I think you should re-read the thread. There's a wide range of opinions that don't fit your tight, but incorrect, pigeon hole definitions. You can start with mine if you wish.

Disclosing Valerie Plame's identity was NOT petty. The Bushwhackos jeopardized national security with THEIR petty games.

Knowing whether it was right to publish Martinez' name requires information we don't have, specifically, whether there was any valid reason to publish it, despite requests from the CIA not to do so. If there was no value to the story, or if publishing it posed any danger to Martinez or others, the Times should have respected the CIA's request.

The bigger problem is, the CIA has already destroyed a lot of their own credibility by trying to cover up their involvement with the administration's criminality. The last thing we need is to have the American people distrust those charged with maintaining our national security... but that's where we are.