Brought to you by the same folks who have published national security programs designed to defend the United States from terrorist attacks, and were asked by the White House and Congress members of both parties to not publish, the NY Times provides the name of a CIA interrogator so that al Qaeda knows who to look for, along with his family, to torture and kill
The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a C.I.A. offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called “knuckledraggers.” (snip)
Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request. (An editors’ note on this issue has been posted on The Times’s Web site.)
Apparently, the Times feels that it is OK to play semantic games which put Martinez and his family in mortal harm simply for a story about KSM’s interrogation. I notice that the Times was in high outrage over the release of Valerie Plame’s name, which had been featured on Joe Wilson’s Who’s Who web page, despite her being a staff officer working at CIA headquarters, and not having been undercover for over 5 years.
For the most part, if they had just left Martinez’s name out of it, it would be a good story. But
(From the Editors Note) 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.
Will the Times take responsibility if something happens to him and/or his family? Freedom of the Press does not mean they can put someone in mortal danger. BTW, since Martinez was working undercover in a foreign nation, possibly within the last 5 years, doesn’t that mean he is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?
See Dubya: Like hell I’ll link these worthless blackhearted anti-American ass-grommets.
Allahpundit: Too bad, because an otherwise fascinating story about the scramble to build a counterterror apparatus after 9/11, the merits of coercive vs. non-coercive interrogation, and the stings that nailed Abu Zubaydah and KSM is going to be submerged in a debate over their decision to publish the lead interrogator’s name against his wishes and those of CIA chief Michael Hayden.
Fausta: ….tells us that the NYT has revealed the full name of the CIA man who managed to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to talk. Funny how the Times and other media were full of outrage when Valerie Plame, who used to drive into the CIA parking lot every morning with the top down of her Mercedes, was “outed”, but they have no problem in outing anyone else employed by the CIA.
Macsmind: The identity of CIA employee is classified, and although illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protections ACT, the CIA did ask that his name not be published. Therefore the Ny Times is in legal jeopardy for publishing his name.
Six Meat Buffet: Valerie Plame was a desk jockey but Martinez was actually out in the field interrogating the planners of 9/11. I hope the Congressional investigations will start shortly into these traitors who claim to have agonized over this decision to intentionally putting this man at risk.
Flopping Aces: Yes, if only he were an “undercover” operative like Valerie Plame Wilson. Then the NY Times would have kept him anonymous. [/sarcasm]
Gateway Pundit: this time by releasing the name of the CIA interrogator in their article on the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the Times has put the interrogator and his family in grave danger.
For an opposing view, Talk Left thinks outing Martinez is a great thing, vis a vis releasing Martinez’s name (and is also trying to smear Martinez for being a former “Narcotics officer”: Good for the Times.