The New York Times Names Names
A newspaper's "credibility" trumps a CIA agent's safety
By AcademicElephant Posted in new york times | outing CIA agents | terrorist interrogations | War — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The lead article in the Sunday New York Times is "Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation" by Scott Shane. The article is full of the standard boilerplate--Iraq has caused more terrorist plots against us (of course they haven't been actually carried out, but that's hardly the point), "torture" inflicted by CIA interrogators has destroyed our international reputation, and the terrorist detainees really aren't so very bad (they write poetry and drink Ensure, just like many readers of the Times). This may seem just another piece in the emerging narrative in which Iraq is a dirty war. It doesn't matter if we win because the very conflict is illegitimate--and what could be worse than victory without honor? It really would be better to have just lost, as many have been arguing for the last five years.
Hang on, there's more here. Through conduits he chooses not to elucidate, Mr. Shane had access to substantial documentation of the capture and interrogation of several high-value targets. And in the Hallowed Times Tradition, the paper decided its dedication to journalistic integrity was more important national security interests, and a deliberate editorial decision was made to reveal the identity of KSM's chief interrogator--his name, his employer, and his current involvement with the Agency.
Read on...
The DCI, General Michael Hayden, made a personal plea to the Times not to publish this information, arguing that while the agent no longer worked directly for the CIA publishing his name would "put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency."
Hard cheese, says the New York Times. The name was necessary to preserve the paper's "credibility." It proves they have insider access. The agent is on his own. After all, he was never technically under cover. This isn't like, say, the outing of an agent of Valerie Plame caliber. Now that was a scandalously-craven, politically-motivated crime that endangered a super secret spy.
This guy? Not so much.
For good measure, the Mr. Shane goes on to give specifics on the allies that assisted us in the detention and interrogation of high value detainees in the years right after 9/11, effectively improving their chances of being on the receiving end of terrorist attention.
This is not to say there isn't interesting or potentially useful information in the article. I was struck by how flat-footed the intelligence response was after 9/11. The reaction was not well-planned or co-ordinated. This should be hardly surprising, given the evisceration of the intelligence community in the 1990s, but it can still be instructive. What were the shortcomings in planning? How should rules for interrogation have been codified and vetted? Should we be doing more now, in this relative lull, to craft a coherent policy that will stand us in good stead in the next crisis? Finally, what are the "lessons learned" from the interrogations to date? What methods produced actionable intelligence? At what price?
These are questions Mr. Shane largely chooses to ignore, focusing instead on the agent in question, his personality, his background, his methods. It seems to me this information will be extremely useful to those we might need to interrogate in the future, who can start training now to resist the techniques in which CIA agents are being instructed.
I suppose that the publication is just another day's work for the New York Times, and we should stop being surprised at the reckless and selective manner in which they expose sensitive information. But for the sake of this agent I think it is at least worth asking who gave Scott Shane his name, and why? Is there a larger agenda to smear the CIA and the whole Bush administration counter-terrorism effort that is coordinating these leaks? What ongoing liability might the paper have for the consequences of publishing this information?
It might seem like tilting at windmills, but I think the real danger may lie in becoming so enured to the behavior of press outlets like the Times that we don't bother to even ask the questions anymore.
« It's a pity that this didn't make the actual New York Times editorial page... — Comments (0) | "Iraq's Chance" — Comments (5) »
The New York Times Names Names 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You know, Code Pink would dig up their names, go to the homes, make it uncomfortable for anyone to associate with the NYT after a stunt like this (well, after several stunts ago actually).
It would be aggressive, angry, and personal. They would do their best to make it uncomfortable to be against them.
Where are the activists who can make it uncomfortable to be an enemy of the United States?
I am trying to think of a way to do just that, despite my current inability to get to New York until at least this fall. There has to be a way. The letters to my Congress Critters and to the Times are already in work. However, this deserves more than that, but what?
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")
If it is a consumer products company write them several letters and state that while you are aware that they are not exercising editorial they are de facto supporting this.
If it is a local company you do business with, clip the article and talk to the owner/manager next time you are there. Make it known that by continuing to advertise in the times they are making a choice who their customers will be.
Keep the article and the list, when you have a chance to spend money with an advertiser raise the issue.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A few NYT Advertisers on their website
- Holland America Cruise Lines
- HSBC Direct (some online bank, I guess)
Other pages
- DirectBuy (Maybe Savage and Beck can pressure DirectBuy to stop doing NYT)
- Fountainbleu Miami Beach
- Embarq Security
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --
If the Bush DoJ will not go after the NYT for endangering agents and US citizens (Oh, yea. They like to put soldiers and marines on trial instead of newspaper editors)how about a public class action suit against the Times for public endangerment.
I'm afraid we're entering some bad times in the next few decades. Especially if we have Obama as president and a democrat congress. It will be like lambs to the slaughter in terms of what it means to be an American. Already, terrorists are handed the hard-fought rights we as citizens enjoy, while our military personnel are tried in a completely different justice system where they are not afforded the same rights.
We coddle the terrorists, punish our soldiers, out the people doing the hardest jobs, publish our strategies and plans, and completely refuse to take any action.
Something's got to give real soon, folks.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
... this is simply heart breaking! Yes, anger is underneath, and wanting to get the person who leaked this is paramount. The person who leaked this needs a long jail sentence. The heart breaking part comes in that the person who did this will never be brought to answer for this treachery. It breaks my heart that in our country this is now considered acceptable by the ruling classes. It is not, but my opinion doesn't matter.
I mourn that our country has devolved to this low level, and that people who should know better don't, or don't care.
The George Bush resignation speech applies to this. Will there be enough people left who can save what is left of our Republic?
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")
Didn't we recently have a (manufactured) scandal that consumed three years of the energy of the chattering classes re the Plame affair?
Silly streetwise, this guy actually did something secret and sensitive, and is materially harmed by the revelation. There's no parallel to the Plame case.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
in the Dems' corner with regard to taking down the Bush Administration if possible. What? Was this guy unfortunate enough to be a solid patriot or something? Shame on him.
/snark off
There's no formal journalistic standards for them to abide by. They are not accountable to anyone outside of their cozy offices. It's not anyone related to them, or who they know personally that might get killed as a result of this despicable article. It seems to me there must be some untested law, sitting on the books, that would make something like this a criminal act (afterall, didn't Mr. Fitzgerald just spend two years working on the outing of someone a hell of alot less clandestine than the chief interrogator?). Yet here we sit, and the NY Times and Mr. Shane will bask in the warm glow of liberal adulation for a job well done. To this day, it pains me to understand where the hell the DOJ is when crap like this happens and no one is held accountable; it isn't the first time we've had these breaches by the NY Times, et.al., and as long as Bush is President, it won't be the last. Yet, the do it with reckless abandon, and worse yet, no one cares.
like the value of their stock,has fallen precipitously over the past few years. It's also not true that no one cares about this--all of US do, and I daresay a great number of agents who have been/are involved in this sort of work care tremendously. How many of them will be willing to do their job this effectively in the future if this is their reward?
We are being hamstrung at every juncture by those who wish to see this country become defenseless and toothless in this war on terror. They are traitors.
and are outraged when she was outed by Armitage, but cannot be bothered when a real agent is at risk.
What utter poultroonish venal reactionary transparent hypocrites.
Wasn't just yesterday that seemingly every media outlet was reminding us that it is illegal to reveal a CIA agent's identity? Even real ones!
Once again the DoJ has an opportunity to squander.
They justify using his name against his wishes by saying in effect: "In our expert opinion he should have no reason to fear retaliation from so-called terrorsts."
And of course if anything does happen to him or his family it will be Bush's fault for putting him in that position, not the NYT for practicing the first amendment.
~~
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."
my real anger is toward the utterly feckless response of the Bush Administration. We've seen classified info published and now personal info on CIA agents and all we get is whining from the President. No grand jury subpoenas to find out who released the info, no attempt to punish the Times. Nothing but whining.
This is exhibit A for why I hold POTUS is such low esteem. This abrogation of his duty to defend the country from domestic enemies drops him waaaaaaay down on my list of Presidents. My biggest irritation is that I don't see McCain being much better. On the hopeful side, he CAN'T be worse.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
When we get madder at our side, than at the enemy sympathizers, that helps create an environment where borderline treason becomes as acceptable as it is in American culture today.
I'm perfectly willing to participate in sort of activity that will punish the Times, but until the Administration acts they won't care.
The only people who can really make the point is the Admin.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Punish the people. Personally. Blacklist anyone who works there. Follow them, protest them, mark them as collaborators wherever they go.
Dang it. We need some college students, heh.
a grand jury and call the NYT reporters and editors and ask them for sources and then toss them in jail if the refused to answer, and then convene a new GJ when the first one expires it would go a long way to stopping this crap.
Oh, and pull their press creds.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But I also want protests at their homes every day at an early hour, heh.
Americans will start believing things like this are a big deal when the administration ACTS like they are a big deal.
History will show that Bush's unilateral disarmament when it comes to domestic enemies has been almost as harmful as Bill Clinton's disarmament when it came to foreign enemies.
------------------------------------------
This signature left intentionally blank
John McCain needs to call out the New York Times over this.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
out of business....and I believe with the way it is going I give it 10 years tops...they ought to be thrown in jail but their demise with be pleasure enough!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I really really hope nothing harmful happens to the gentleman whose name was named.
And the New York Times ought to hope likewise, for their own sake. :-)
unless the Administration chooses to turn up the heat. And, the New Castrati of Bush 43's White House will likely do nothing.
I'm hoping the DNI, CIA Director and Joint Chiefs take the ball and run with it. Bar the NYT from the Pentagon. Put a news blackout on them. Then, let the NYT convince the American people to feel sorry for it.
If someone with the power to act against the NYT chooses not to act, then we have every right to feel cynical.
Mr. President, Mr. Commander-In-Chief, it is your duty to act. Personally, I don't care if you feel like it or not. I voted for you twice, and wrote pro-Bush articles and walked the streets and manned booths for you last time, because I knew we need a Commander In Chief who won't sit by while his troops get trashed.
So, if some of the New Castrati who advise you (perhaps another Scotty McClellan?) is whispering in your ear that you really shouldn't irritate the NYT, I'd like to ask you, respectfully, to man up.
You're in charge. You asked for the job; we gave it to you and then gave it to you again four years later. Now, take charge.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
It likely won't do any good, but direct your anger to their Public Editor. If his email and voicemail box gets flooded, perhaps the NYT will take notice.
email address: public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
Clark Hoyt is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears on Sundays at least twice monthly.
I sent off a scathing letter. I doubt it will do any good, but it's better for my own blood pressure than just seething privately.
All Americans who disapprove of their pro-terrorist actions should divest, stop reading them, and shun anyone who associates with them.
We need a blacklist. That's my view.
HTML Help for Red Staters
