• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NY Times outs CIA agent

XMan

Lifer
Editors? Note

The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of Deuce Martinez, an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify Mr. Martinez would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.

After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.

The 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.



Shocking. Absolutely shocking. If you read the linked article, you'll see that the Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed for the article. However, others who worked with him were interviewed, and were not named. Is the Times being retaliatory to Martinez for not cooperating with them?

In any case, not cool to make this guy a target. With all the hubbub about the outing of Valerie Plame out Richard Armitage, here is a guy who worked in the field and with terrorists one on one - far different, and much more dangerous than a WMD analyst.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Anonymity is what makes people evil. Crime is fine so long as you don't think you'll get caught.

So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?
 
Originally posted by: XMan

Shocking. Absolutely shocking. If you read the linked article, you'll see that the Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed for the article. However, others who worked with him were interviewed, and were not named. Is the Times being retaliatory to Martinez for not cooperating with them?
Of course. If you sell out your country to an NY Times reporter you're a "source" who they will go to jail to protect, but if you refuse then you're just a "subject" who they have no problem exposing.

 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Anonymity is what makes people evil. Crime is fine so long as you don't think you'll get caught.

So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?

Plame was taking an active part in some sort of unconstitutional intelligence work?

First I heard.

Care to elaborate?
 
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Anonymity is what makes people evil. Crime is fine so long as you don't think you'll get caught.

So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?

Plame was taking an active part in some sort of unconstitutional intelligence work?

First I heard.

Care to elaborate?

Her husband wasn't actively trying to promote Bush's invasion plans of Iraq.

That may not be unconstitutional but it is immoral to be against a war of freedumb.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?

For her direct participation in our brutally flawed torture/interrogation process, of course!

Oh, wait . . .

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?

For her direct participation in our brutally flawed torture/interrogation process, of course!

Oh, wait . . .

:roll:

Just checking, I wasn't sure if we're for outing agents or against. I just can't keep it straight.
 
First, compare apples to aardvarks, then engage in the usual rightwing finger-pointing about how they're all the same...

The big issue in the Plame scandal is that the perps compromised an ongoing program and Plame's sources abroad, thus diminishing the nation's ability to obtain intelligence. They also compromised Plame's usefulness to the agency and thus her career advancement potential.

Martinez efforts wrt interrogations were over, never under cover, and he is now retired... the CIA has not claimed that the NYT has done anything illegal, either, which was not the case wrt Plame... the notion that he's now some kind of target is pure speculation...

And, uhh, it's not like the NYT is actually running the govt, either, raving about national security and compromising it for the own political ends all at the same time...
 
Originally posted by: XMan

In any case, not cool to make this guy a target. With all the hubbub about the outing of Valerie Plame out Richard Armitage, here is a guy who worked in the field and with terrorists one on one - far different, and much more dangerous than a WMD analyst.

If it put Mr. Martinez, or national security, or any legitimate cases against suspected terrorists in jeopardy in any way, it's as wrong as outing Valerie Plame. That's true for the New York Times. That's true for the Bush administration.

Contrary to what your post implies, Plame worked under cover in the field. If she had been outed while she was there, her life would have been very much in danger, and we will probably never know how many other covert American assets and secrets were compromised by their association with her once her identity was disclosed.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?

For her direct participation in our brutally flawed torture/interrogation process, of course!

Oh, wait . . .

:roll:

Just checking, I wasn't sure if we're for outing agents or against. I just can't keep it straight.

He's retired from the CIA. Palme was an active agent whose career of covert service was ended by the assholes you're now trying to cover for with this BS diversion.

Where was your outrage and concern when Palme was outed?

Post a link to it, please.






 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So you're saying that Plame should have been outed and the Republicans were just exposing evil?

For her direct participation in our brutally flawed torture/interrogation process, of course!

Oh, wait . . .

:roll:

Just checking, I wasn't sure if we're for outing agents or against. I just can't keep it straight.

I would expect her to be outed for doing something evil, yes. But outing a CIA agent, based on the presumption they are not anonymous within the scrutiny of the CIA itself, is illegal.

I think this guy doesn't want to be outed because he's an asshole and doesn't want to take credit for that fact.
 
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.
 
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.

QFT. it just makes the poster and his supporters look like fools.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.
 
Back
Top