This story has nothing to do with Valerie Plame. If you all want to talk about her, start a new thread.

In the meantime, feel free to comment on the topic at hand, which is:



In this article, the NY Times revealed the name of the man that interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The Times was asked by the CIA not to use the mans name in their story, but as usual, the Times could care less about the safety of anyone connected to the United States government or the military. By publishing the mans name, they have now put him and his family in serious danger of being retaliated against by Muslim extremists, not to mention the harassment they are now subject to by far left liberals who hate the government.

Here is the excuse the Times uses to justify their reckless actions:

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.

Link

Yes oh grand master of the internet.

We will all follow your rules becuase of all the respect we have for your opinion.

LOL : crazy:

When you get promoted to Mod then I will bother to take your advise.

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."

You make my point... If you were so interested in Valerie Plame, you would start a thread about it. The fact is, all you care about is derailing this one.

No the point was made that a double standard is being set and you just ignore the point becuase you have nothing to come back with so then you jump into your wannabe mod roll.

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."

There is no double standard. If you don't believe me, then start a new thread... If you don't, then you display that your only motivation for bringing up Plame, was just to avoid the truth about the NY Times reprehensible actions.

Okay, I won't say anything about WHO the former Dept. Sec. of State Armitage outed because he didn't know she was secure undercover classified and so thought it was no big deal.

But it is pertinent to the argument that he DID so, since it supports the argument that its not a big deal that the NY Times ran an article naming a CIA employee who was NOT undercover and is news.

As I said in my other post:

Not scum and non issue.

Since the man never worked undercover and his identity would be therefore easily discoverable, it is not "wrong" or "scummy" for the NY Times to decline the request of the CIA to not reveal his name. His name was not "secret" to begin with and according to the article was revealed by other named CIA interrogators who worked with him at the time some of whom were also named.

He sounds like a man worthy of admiration for his work, which achieved great results while he turned down "training" in such "advanced" techniques as "waterboarding" and got better and more information without using torture and intimidation. He has done this country proud. I thank him and commend his intelligence and ethics.

As for putting him "in danger" its obvious that it does not put him in any more danger than previous to the article since his name was not secret and easily discoverable to begin with.

I fail to see what is "scummy" about this.

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

The story I remember is a Sunni Sheik starting to work with our troops in the Anbar province. It was in the news with photos of him and announcing his name. Since this became a Bush bragging point about progress, everyone including Fox carried the story. Then the Sheik was assassinated by al Qaeda. His tribe then turned on and routed al Qaeda out of the Anbar province.

It was incredibly dumb to set this Sheik up like this for assassination.

If the NY Times was involved in this type of leak, then they were wrong. That's not my issue. Generalizing from that situation to saying the liberal news media are scum is a big jump. And that's also where your obvious bias comes out, as I am sure you say in contrast Fox News is a wonderful news source with no bias.

__________________
National Debt =

My personal feelings about the media in America, have nothing to do with the facts I posted. My bias toward the media is something I don't attempt to hide, and doesn't come into play in this issue.

I posted the facts about what happened. I linked to the original story, presented what the CIA requested of the Times, and even posted the Times rebuttal. I then proceeded to give my opinion of what the Times did, which was not shrouded is a cloud of partisan bias, but based on simple right and wrong.

I believe that the Times unnecessarily put that man and his family at risk, and did so knowing the danger. To me, there is no excuse for putting people in critical danger just for the sake of making a story appear more credible. The publishing of his name was not a necessary element to this piece, and that's why in my opinion, the NY Times actions are inexcusable.

Bull****. You ARE showing a double standard, and just pull out your wannabe mod hat when someone confronts you with an inconvenient truth. You can't even set aside your partisanship for one minute to admit that your heroes did something similar (something that you consider morally outrageous when the NYT does it, but apparently not when the Bush administration does it).

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

You just can't help yourself can you?

You have to attempt to make this story about me and the Bush administration.

Guess what pal, it isn't about either. I extended an offer to you and the others who want to attack me to start a separate thread, but you won't, and that speaks volumes.