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

Doesn't anyone have an opinion on this?

Given the behavior of the Bush administration and their outing of a NOC for political gain, I accept the New York Times explanation.

BESIDES, SINCE THE GUY WAS NOT OPERATING UNDER COVER ANYONE COULD UNCOVER HIS IDENTITY WITH VERY LITTLE EFFORT!

So anyone who would be a threat to such a person already had the means to uncover his identity. The only ones who didn't have such means would be the "ordinary" individuals who comprise the readership of the New York Times who are no threat to that person.

As for that persons privacy, the open and on going investigation of the Bush administrations policy of torture because of the Bush administrations failure to cooperate pretty much ends any expectation of such.

You have your opinion.

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

Gee, you let your hate for Bush dictate right and wrong... What a shock! lol

I guess we can add to the list, that you don't care about the safety of your fellow Americans, you just hate Bush.

That's a crock and you know it, Grim. What's most notable is your hostility towards anybody who doesn't worship Bush. And you've made that germane to this thread with your snide remark towards Affrayer.

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

You better read this thread again pal.

I'm not the one who injected Bush into this discussion. The president has nothing to do with this story, but that didn't stop Affrayer from saying:

He has just said that because he hates Bush and his policies, that the NY Times had every right to reveal that mans name and put him and his family at risk. That is total crap.

So don't give me any sh!t about "defending Bush", because I'm not. I'm pointing out a typical case of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" that has resulted in the infected person foregoing what is right, and condoning the NY Times putting a man and his family in unnecessary risk.

what does this have to do with liberal media bias?

It is clear that that information would follow the printing of the article. Once it was printed other news organizations would have dug it up.

So this is just something taken out of context, with liberal hate speech duct taped to it.

__________________

The NY times is the king of liberal bias. Only a paper with such a blatant anti-Bush/anti-republican bias would have published that name after being asked not to. Their agenda has been crystal clear for many years.

Maybe it's YOU who should read the thread again, and I'm not your pal. I said nothing about "defending" Bush. I just pointed out your habit of jumping all over people who refuse to "worship" (that was my word, not "defend") Bush.

Affrayer correctly pointed out that the person in question was not working undercover. Valerie Plame was, however. Your selective outrage is duly noted.

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

Screw the law dude... It was unnecessary and irresponsible for the NY Times to print this mans name in their story. This is a matter of right and wrong, not the law. It's called morality.

So it's ok by you and others on the left, that the NY Times has painted a target on this man and his family... And why is that? I'll tell you why. It's because your hatred for Bush and the current administration is more important than protecting a man and his family, that did nothing wrong.

As long as it serves your political beliefs, you and your ilk don't give a sh!t about Americans being put at risk. You all did the same thing with abu grabe.