NY Times outs CIA agent

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.

So what? Anyone that makes the news could be a potential target as well, should we stop all naming of people on TV? And I guess we can't use names in the newspapers anymore either. And come to think of it, no more actors names on movie credits. Someone might realize who Brad Pitt is and make him a terrorist target.

All news interviewers and interviewee's could wear masks and be referred to as Mr/Mrs X. Then we could digitize/alter their voice as well. See how silly this gets?

Is this just another well, it's hypothetically possible, so lets dogpile on the NYT just because we can?

 

[Rainsford]

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.

Well sure, because "not beyond the realm of possibility" is a good reason to do or not do something. :roll:

The problem with you people bitching about the NYT is that you're not arguing the big picture...you're saying that something bad could maybe happen as a result, but you're not balancing that with the other considerations that may favor revealing this guy's affiliation with the CIA. Is your argument really that anything that could possibly have negative consequences should not be printed in a paper?

 

[Rainsford]

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

I would certainly agree that the CIA is in the best position to judge something like that, the problem is that they are NOT qualified to judge how best to report on a story or to see the larger picture beyond the concerns of their agency. And even if they were, I think history has made it pretty clear the the government withholds information for reasons that have nothing to do with personal safety or national security. Were the NYT to run every CIA related story past the CIA, we'd lose an incredibly important check in our democracy. Some conservatives may hate the media, but you want to know why the CIA is the generally good organization it is compared to the intel services of many countries? I guarantee you that freedom of the press has a lot to do with it.

I guess the problem I have with this discussion is the absolutist stance some people take on it. It's not about finding a good balance between free media and national security/personal safety, it's that some people clearly think that the NYT shouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING that the CIA doesn't approve of. I'm not sure you think that way, but your post certainly sounded like that. And honestly, that just seems dangerous and naive to me...because even if you are smart enough to see the problems inherent in a system like that, plenty of people don't seem to.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

Have you explored the possibility that trying to treat every similar situation as if they were exactly the same is a pretty ridiculous approach to a discussion? I'm sure some people ARE just following the political path, but there are significant differences that you could legitimately disagree on with one situation compared to the other.

 

[Kuragami]

There is a virtual bullet proof, if you will, way to protecting government officials and agents of the various intelligence agencies.

Stop meddling in the affairs of other nations and you won't stir up a hornet's nest.

Instead lead by example and hopefully enough people will see it and want it that they will slowly change the system. Regime change only really takes place when the old generation with old ideas dies and is replaced by a new generation with new ideas. However it makes it hard to implement new ideas when the ideas you placed in the heads of the old generation are once again planted into the heads of the new one due to your actions.

You reap what you sow.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Kuragami
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?

I can't remember the CIA ever publishing a list of ANY of their officers; overt, clan, or otherwise; let alone anything that would link their officers to specific cases... the same cannot be said of the NYT.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
So what? Anyone that makes the news could be a potential target as well, should we stop all naming of people on TV? And I guess we can't use names in the newspapers anymore either. And come to think of it, no more actors names on movie credits. Someone might realize who Brad Pitt is and make him a terrorist target.

All news interviewers and interviewee's could wear masks and be referred to as Mr/Mrs X. Then we could digitize/alter their voice as well. See how silly this gets?

Is this just another well, it's hypothetically possible, so lets dogpile on the NYT just because we can?

That post was perhaps one of the dumbest I have EVER seen around here, and that's saying alot!

If you honestly don't understand the difference between the interrogator who interrogated one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, and "everyone else," then you don't deserve to share my oxygen.

It was entirely irresponsible of the NYT to deny the CIA's request, regardless of the operational status of the officer involved.

bah...

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

I am still VERY angry over the outing of Plame as well, so you can stick this "same people" bullshit straight up your stereotyping ass.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I guess the problem I have with this discussion is the absolutist stance some people take on it. It's not about finding a good balance between free media and national security/personal safety, it's that some people clearly think that the NYT shouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING that the CIA doesn't approve of. I'm not sure you think that way, but your post certainly sounded like that. And honestly, that just seems dangerous and naive to me...because even if you are smart enough to see the problems inherent in a system like that, plenty of people don't seem to.

I believe the line should be drawn based on the nature of the information being reported. Unless there is a crime being committed by the overt officer being named, the CIA's request for anonymity should be respected.

That was clearly not the case here. An innocent and honorable man, and his family, have been placed in danger -- or more danger than was otherwise necessary.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
There is a virtual bullet proof, if you will, way to protecting government officials and agents of the various intelligence agencies.

Stop meddling in the affairs of other nations and you won't stir up a hornet's nest.

Instead lead by example and hopefully enough people will see it and want it that they will slowly change the system. Regime change only really takes place when the old generation with old ideas dies and is replaced by a new generation with new ideas. However it makes it hard to implement new ideas when the ideas you placed in the heads of the old generation are once again planted into the heads of the new one due to your actions.

You reap what you sow.

Please let us know if/when you return from your Utopian acid trip...

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole bit about how the NYT put the guy in some kind of danger is pretty much hogwash. first, they didn't publish his full proper name, but rather his nickname, "deuce". next, he's not linked to anybody or anything other than the CIA... and it's likely that he's never represented himself as working for the agency in his private life, anyway, as is the custom of CIA employees- he tells people he works for some "other" agency.

OK, say you're a terrorist intent on doing the guy harm- how do you find him among the hundreds, maybe thousands of retired govt employees named Gonzales? Or among the hundreds of thousands of citizens name Gonzales?

Given that he's retired, he could be anywhere, not necessarily living in the US, for that matter... he's a needle in a haystack that nobody's likely looking for, anyway...

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Kuragami
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?

I can't remember the CIA ever publishing a list of ANY of their officers; overt, clan, or otherwise; let alone anything that would link their officers to specific cases... the same cannot be said of the NYT.

No they didn't. Yet it's public knowledge.

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Please let us know if/when you return from your Utopian acid trip...

Please let me know if/when you decide you wish to live in a better world and want to enter an intelligent debate.

It's something that seems to be thin on the ground around here.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Kuragami

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Kuragami
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?

I can't remember the CIA ever publishing a list of ANY of their officers; overt, clan, or otherwise; let alone anything that would link their officers to specific cases... the same cannot be said of the NYT.

No they didn't. Yet it's public knowledge.

it is?! where?!

Originally posted by: Kuragami

Originally posted by: palehorse
Please let us know if/when you return from your Utopian acid trip...

Please let me know if/when you decide you wish to live in a better world and want to enter an intelligent debate.

It's something that seems to be thin on the ground around here.

The point is, your "better world" didn't have much to do with the discussion. There will always be bad people out to do other good people harm, and there will (hopefully) always be others ready to plac themselves in harm's way to protect those good people.

So, with that in mind, try to stay focused on the topic at hand...

 

[Starbuck1975]

Have you explored the possibility that trying to treat every similar situation as if they were exactly the same is a pretty ridiculous approach to a discussion? I'm sure some people ARE just following the political path, but there are significant differences that you could legitimately disagree on with one situation compared to the other.

I agree, but the discussion has already splintered along political ideologies, also taking into consideration the stance that many of us took on the whole Plame affair.

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

That is a point of contention. The severity of the national security threat posed by the Plame situation is still open to debate. What is not open to debate is that the Plame situation was very much a scenario of political reprisal against a member of the CIA due to her husband's stance on the war in Iraq...we should feel the same outrage regardless of Plame's position of government service...the CIA angle is just fuel for the debate flames.

Given that he's retired, he could be anywhere, not necessarily living in the US, for that matter... he's a needle in a haystack that nobody's likely looking for, anyway...

That could all very well be true...but we need to have a consistent standard for when it is acceptable to reveal the identities of intelligence community members, and when it is not. I do not trust either the media or the government to make that determination in manner that does not bear the taint of political intent.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: palehorse

I believe the line should be drawn based on the nature of the information being reported. Unless there is a crime being committed by the overt officer being named, the CIA's request for anonymity should be respected.

That was clearly not the case here. An innocent and honorable man, and his family, have been placed in danger -- or more danger than was otherwise necessary.

Please do tell how this man and his family have been put in danger by the article? Did you even read it before your knee jerked up to your sternum?

The article puts the man in a very glowing light. It said that he refused to do the Bush admin's bidding WRT torturing prisoners to get information. It says that KSM even respected him enough to write personal poems for his wife.

They wrote absolutely nothing that would endanger this man or his family. They were closer to ensuring that he would be one of the only interrogators to be spared any retribution from where I stand.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
So what? Anyone that makes the news could be a potential target as well, should we stop all naming of people on TV? And I guess we can't use names in the newspapers anymore either. And come to think of it, no more actors names on movie credits. Someone might realize who Brad Pitt is and make him a terrorist target.

All news interviewers and interviewee's could wear masks and be referred to as Mr/Mrs X. Then we could digitize/alter their voice as well. See how silly this gets?

Is this just another well, it's hypothetically possible, so lets dogpile on the NYT just because we can?

That post was perhaps one of the dumbest I have EVER seen around here, and that's saying alot!

If you honestly don't understand the difference between the interrogator who interrogated one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, and "everyone else," then you don't deserve to share my oxygen.

It was entirely irresponsible of the NYT to deny the CIA's request, regardless of the operational status of the officer involved.

Please, there have been plenty of "terrorism experts" interviewed on TV, with their faces and names shown. How is that different? What about all the soldiers in Iraq/A-stan that we see on TV, with names and faces? For that matter, we see names/faces of police officers here on TV, that work on the drug problem.

No one has shown that any terrorist has come to the US trying to get "revenge" on a specific person like you are talking about. If the police can live a normal life with all the drug problems we have (and gang problems as well), I think that what you are worried about is way down the list of problems that we face.

This is a knee-jerk reaction by everyone over-reacting.

And please don't insult me like that.

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: palehorse

it is?! where?!

It's illegal? Show me the law.

Originally posted by: palehorse
The point is, your "better world" didn't have much to do with the discussion. There will always be bad people out to do other good people harm, and there will (hopefully) always be others ready to plac themselves in harm's way to protect those good people.

So, with that in mind, try to stay focused on the topic at hand...

You stifle debate by forcing it to be on your own terms as you debase the merit of any other point of view.

So be it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I would certainly agree that the CIA is in the best position to judge something like that, the problem is that they are NOT qualified to judge how best to report on a story or to see the larger picture beyond the concerns of their agency. And even if they were, I think history has made it pretty clear the the government withholds information for reasons that have nothing to do with personal safety or national security. Were the NYT to run every CIA related story past the CIA, we'd lose an incredibly important check in our democracy. Some conservatives may hate the media, but you want to know why the CIA is the generally good organization it is compared to the intel services of many countries? I guarantee you that freedom of the press has a lot to do with it.

I guess the problem I have with this discussion is the absolutist stance some people take on it. It's not about finding a good balance between free media and national security/personal safety, it's that some people clearly think that the NYT shouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING that the CIA doesn't approve of. I'm not sure you think that way, but your post certainly sounded like that. And honestly, that just seems dangerous and naive to me...because even if you are smart enough to see the problems inherent in a system like that, plenty of people don't seem to.

We're just talking about the guy's name, not the whole story. I don't really see how the story itself (which is about interogation methods other than those of waterboarding, sleep deprivation etc) is changed by the inclusion or use of an alias.

I noticed, again apparently contrary to their stated policy, others were listed as anonymous.

Why even ask the CIA if you're going to disregard their *advice*? They said he would be at danger, so use an alias. For all we know, he's now covert using retirement and another job as cover. They certainly can't say that outright.

So, no one is talking about letting the CIA kill whole stories and censor the media in their job. But to out-of-hand disregard a CIA request concerning someone's saftey seems irresponsible to me.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the article, as written, puts the former agent in danger or compromised national security on any level.

Bush and others within the administration and in the media were having a field day talking about KSM on the "anniversary" of his capture and released many more details than this "feel good" piece written about a man that showed that Americans are capable of treating even the most diabolical of prisoners in a manner that conveys respect and dignity for other human beings.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the article, as written, puts the former agent in danger or compromised national security on any level.
-snip-

Well, the CIA said it did. I suppose you should take it up with them as no one here is qualified to speak on their behalf.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the article, as written, puts the former agent in danger or compromised national security on any level.
-snip-

Well, the CIA said it did. I suppose you should take it up with them as no one here is qualified to speak on their behalf.

Fern

As others have stated previously, the CIA is only interested in CYA. Unless we can view the details of the statement from the CIA, that's not really much to go on.

The editor's note claims that it is simply a vague "throw everything at the wall and see which one will stick" type response from them:

invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.

Don't let this get out....but I hear that the President's name is George Bush and he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Oh my, what did I just do? I just let al Qaeda know who the President is and where he lives! He is going to face an invasion his privacy and I put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the country.

Unless the FORMER agent is doing business overseas, his danger level is slightly greater than yours or mine.

People need to turn off 24 and Steven Segal, Jackie Chan and mafia movies.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit about how the NYT put the guy in some kind of danger is pretty much hogwash. first, they didn't publish his full proper name, but rather his nickname, "deuce". next, he's not linked to anybody or anything other than the CIA... and it's likely that he's never represented himself as working for the agency in his private life, anyway, as is the custom of CIA employees- he tells people he works for some "other" agency.

OK, say you're a terrorist intent on doing the guy harm- how do you find him among the hundreds, maybe thousands of retired govt employees named Gonzales? Or among the hundreds of thousands of citizens name Gonzales?

Given that he's retired, he could be anywhere, not necessarily living in the US, for that matter... he's a needle in a haystack that nobody's likely looking for, anyway...

If this is correct, then the NYT did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee and I retract my criticism of them. My criticism of Cheney, Libby, Rove, et al. regarding the disclosure of Valerie Plame still stands, however.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit about how the NYT put the guy in some kind of danger is pretty much hogwash. first, they didn't publish his full proper name, but rather his nickname, "deuce". next, he's not linked to anybody or anything other than the CIA...
-snip-

If this is correct, then the NYT did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee and I retract my criticism of them. My criticism of Cheney, Libby, Rove, et al. regarding the disclosure of Valerie Plame still stands, however.

The NYT published enough info to find him. We know where he grew up, where he went to college, where he now works and his age. From their full article:

The son of a CIA technician who worked on the agency's secret communications and eventually became a senior executive, Martinez grew up in Virginia, majored in political science at James Madison University and went directly into the CIA training program not long before his father retired. He wound up in the agency's Counternarcotics Center, learning to sift masses of phone numbers, travel records, credit card transactions and more to search for people.

After the attacks, officials recognized that tracking drug lords was not so different from searching for terrorist masterminds, and Martinez was among a half dozen or so narcotics analysts moved to the Counterterrorist Center to become "targeting officers" in the hunt for Al Qaeda. Colleagues say Martinez, then 36, threw himself into the new work with a passion (I.e., he was 36 years old in 2002)

He now works for Mitchell & Jessen Associates, a consulting company run by former military psychologists who advised the CIA on the use of harsh tactics in the secret program.

Link

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Don't let this get out....but I hear that the President's name is George Bush and he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Oh my, what did I just do? I just let al Qaeda know who the President is and where he lives! He is going to face an invasion his privacy and I put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the country.

I'm sure Mr. Martinez would also appreciate your humor if it weren't for his lack of a secret service detail protecting him and his entire immediate family 24/7...

There are very good reasons for protecting the identity of anyone who has ever come in contact with the likes of KSM... but, then again, I wouldn't expect Joe Sixpack to truly understand or appreciate those reasons.

You may have a point when you say that the average American does not have much to fear from getting killed by AQ, but the same cannot be said of anyone who is actively involved at the very high levels of the fight against them. The danger factors increase exponentially...

but you know better than the CIA itself, right?

of course you do... after all, it's no skin off your back either way... :roll:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Don't let this get out....but I hear that the President's name is George Bush and he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Oh my, what did I just do? I just let al Qaeda know who the President is and where he lives! He is going to face an invasion his privacy and I put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the country.

I'm sure Mr. Martinez would also appreciate your humor if it weren't for his lack of a secret service detail protecting him and his entire immediate family 24/7...

There are very good reasons for protecting the identity of anyone who has ever come in contact with the likes of KSM... but, then again, I wouldn't expect Joe Sixpack to truly understand or appreciate those reasons.

You may have a point when you say that the average American does not have much to fear from getting killed by AQ, but the same cannot be said of anyone who is actively involved at the very high levels of the fight against them. The danger factors increase exponentially...

but you know better than the CIA itself, right?

of course you do... after all, it's no skin off your back either way... :roll:

Wait....former Senators and Congressmen have their whereabouts are very easily known, their addresses are published in public documents and they are not afforded 24/7 secret service protection and yet this guy is because he questioned someone?

Once again...turn off Jack Bauer. It's make believe.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

With the internet, no one is anonymous anymore. I mean really, there are so many people that terrorists could go after, it's not funny.

I mean, I spent the first half of my life growing up on Army Posts, and today, anyone can still drive into most posts and drive through the housing areas. And everyone's names are usually on the front door. What about all the families of the soldiers deployed fighting? I guess they don't count, huh?

Or how about the stories of wounded soldiers that make the news, they give out their name and hometown. That would make it easy to find. And how about people like the Marines that are undergoing court-martials for Haditha? Their names are out and public, and I would think they aren't liked by insurgents either.

I don't understand how "talking to KSM" makes him some super-duper target, any more then tens of thousands of other US citizens (like the military, FBI, CIA, etc....)

Sure, it's possible, anything is possible, but given limited resources, what is the likelihood that AQ will try to come all the way here to the US just to try and kill one person, who wasn't even one of the people that tortured KSM?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Don't let this get out....but I hear that the President's name is George Bush and he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Oh my, what did I just do? I just let al Qaeda know who the President is and where he lives! He is going to face an invasion his privacy and I put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the country.

I'm sure Mr. Martinez would also appreciate your humor if it weren't for his lack of a secret service detail protecting him and his entire immediate family 24/7...

There are very good reasons for protecting the identity of anyone who has ever come in contact with the likes of KSM... but, then again, I wouldn't expect Joe Sixpack to truly understand or appreciate those reasons.

You may have a point when you say that the average American does not have much to fear from getting killed by AQ, but the same cannot be said of anyone who is actively involved at the very high levels of the fight against them. The danger factors increase exponentially...

but you know better than the CIA itself, right?

of course you do... after all, it's no skin off your back either way... :roll:

Wait....former Senators and Congressmen have their whereabouts are very easily known, their addresses are published in public documents and they are not afforded 24/7 secret service protection and yet this guy is because he questioned someone?

Once again...turn off Jack Bauer. It's make believe.

no, you fool. I was saying that Martinez DOESNT have such protection, which makes your previous comparison to the known whereabouts of the POTUS completely fucking ridiculous.

did you forget to take your smart-pills today?

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Sure, it's possible, anything is possible, but given limited resources, what is the likelihood that AQ will try to come all the way here to the US just to try and kill one person, who wasn't even one of the people that tortured KSM?

Well, for starters, they're already here...

The bottom line is that the NYT placed the scoop ahead of this man's safety, and that of his family. They took it upon themselves to make a decision regarding his safety while thy were in no position whatsoever to do so.