Loading ...
Thanks For Your Service
- Filed under: Scandalous
- Date: Jun 23,2008
Sunday the New York Times ran an article titled "Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation."
The article appeared innocent enough. Of course, it was not. The NYT determined that they were going to go ahead, despite official pleas not to, and reveal the name of the man who questioned and got information from among others, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The article even says this person did not torture him. Nice reward for doing your job. I will not link to the piece on principle. If you haven't read it yet you should be able to find it even if you have only limited internet searching skills.
Official NYT explanation: The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of [not using name here], an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify [not using name here] 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 [not using name here], the newspaper declined the request, noting that [not using name here] 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’ 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.
Side note: Why didn’t the NYT follow these rules when they ran that smear article on Sen. McCain alleging that he was "close" to a lobbyist? What? There is an election soon? Oh.
Coincidentally, some of those who provided information for the story were not named. The [jerks] who gave information without any approval get protected by the paper and the guy who does his job gets screwed over.
Some Democrats will be quick to point out that people like me defended the Bush Administration in the Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame / Robert Novak / Scooter Libby / Richard Armitage / Peter Fitzgerald witch hunt. Fair. We've argued about that in circles on my other site many a time. Assuming they were right (for arguments sake only), then this obviously must upset those same people and outrage them. This seems about 65x worse to me. You wanted Bush and Cheney to go to Guantanamo over that? How about the author of this article Scott Shane and his bosses at the Times? Just to do it, the NYT published sensitive information that they really didn't need to. An alias would have worked fine. But no. Then for an extra poke in the eye, they told you just where this person works now and in what capacity. Pretty shocking when you think about it. Really.
It is a shame, because it ruined an otherwise pretty informative and interesting article that talked about different interrogation types and specific details on overseas raids from past years and how ill prepared US intelligence was post 1990s to deal with emerging threats. The piece still would have credibility even without using the name in question. There just wasn't a need to do so.
The New York Times, looking out for America's best interest. No wonder their subscription rate and stock are plummeting. It makes you wonder if they even care about profit or if they just are willing to lose money to push an agenda and destroy lives. It is getting hard to argue against the latter. Just ask [not using name here].
12 Responses for "Thanks For Your Service"
[...] hits the real point of the NYT leaking of the KSM interrogator: Some Democrats will be quick to point [...]
Did they give the man's home phone number, address and email too?
I guess getting the name in print is more important to the essence of the story than protecting people with valuable skills and who have broken no laws. But when you are the NYT I guess you can justify anything.
Yes, I don't think made any front page apologies for linking McCain and the lobbyist.
Hey, we are talking the NYT here. They only interest is futhering their agenda. They will never let facts, agreements or any other thing get in their way. I used to regularly read the NYT times now I occasionaly read the rag for its humor content.
This is disgraceful behavior and has nothing to do with the other CIA case.
traitors
For sure I think they are more interested in their agenda than anything.
They have every right to run such a story.
and the claim that they are anti-america for doing so shows how flawed your views of what being american represents.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration, as individual have no right to dessiminate such things, unlike the press.
And this is another "how dare you moment"
That same press you guys bitch about kept back the warrantless wiretapping story until AFTER the 2004 election. That could have swung the election, but they sat on it to aid these Bush goons.
You should thank the NYT every day that Bush was reelected, so you could see 4 more years of tax cuts and american blood in iraq.
Chuck K, I never said they couldn't run it - I said they shouldn't run it.
Speaking of wiretapping, you must be disapointed with Obama's latest backtrack as he tries to go the center?
Obama spokesman Bill Burton on October 24, 2007: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
Barack Obama, June 20, 2008: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”
Chuck K
Your comment about thanking the NYT for 4 more years of AMerican bloodshed in Iraq is way out of line, even for you.
Yes, they did have the right to run this story. That is not the point–it was should they have run the story including the name and the details of his present life.
The NYT was, at the very least, complicit in Bush's re-election in 2004. If the paper would have broken the spying-on-Americans story before the election, we might be out of Iraq now. Instead more U.S. soldiers are dead. For nothing.
Side note to Ben: McCain did have a cozy relationship with Vicky Iseman. The NYT reported the truth. Nowhere did the Times say McCain was screwing Iseman. But indeed, she had McSame's ear, and apparently his letter writing ability on behalf of client: Paxson Communications.
Second note:"…saying that to identify [not using name here] would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency."
You have to admit, this CIA request is kind of laughable considering the open illegal spying and Constitutional violations of the present White House.
And finally: Fearmongering is….umm….out of season.
[...] children at the New York Times outed a CIA interrogator (accordingly, no linky-dink for them; HT The Point via NixGuy) for no other defensible reason besides the fact that they could. What will they do if [...]
Leave a comment