NYT reveals name of KSM’s chief interrogator — against CIA’s wishes
posted at 8:15 pm on June 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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. Here’s the obligatory editor’s note justifying the decision. Quote:
After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for [the interrogrator], the newspaper declined the request, noting that [the interrogator] 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.
Read the piece and you’ll see that credibility and completeness have nothing to do with it. It’s not a story about him; he’s just the springboard to explore the themes I mentioned earlier. They could have as easily used his initials, an alias, or no name at all and the article wouldn’t suffer a bit. As for credibility, that’s easy: Just make a deal with Hayden that in return for withholding the name he’d agree to go on record and vouch for the fact that the identity of the agent as known to the Times was correct. Did they even offer? Doesn’t sound like it. The real motive here in disclosing his name, quite obviously, is to avoid setting a precedent by which they’d feel obligated to withhold names every time a government agency asked them to. That’s fine in the abstract, but it can be handled on a case by case basis. If your subject is known to be an antagonist of some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists, and his former boss is telling you he has reason to believe it’d be better if his name wasn’t divulged, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
Here’s a better question. The Times mentions in the story that the interrogator refused to be interviewed for it; everything in it is based on interviews with his colleagues — some of whom, do note, aren’t named. If he had cooperated and talked to them, would they have agreed not to identify him in return? There’s no way to tell but I suspect so, which makes the decision to name him essentially … punitive. Especially the gratuitous detail about who his current employer is and what he’s up to these days.
As I say, though, don’t let it stop you from reading the piece. The part about Poland being the 51st state is alone worth the price of admission. Exit quotation:
Mr. Mohammed, according to one former C.I.A. officer briefed on the sessions, “would go through these emotional cycles.”
“He’d be chatty, almost friendly,” the officer added. “He liked to debate. He got to the stage where he’d draw parallels between Christianity and Islam and say, ‘Can’t we get along?’ ”
By this account, [the interrogator] would reply to the man who had overseen the killing of nearly 3,000 people: “Isn’t it a little late for that?”
Update: Commenters in the Headlines item are comparing the Times’s stance here to its stance on Plame, but Plame was apparently undercover when her identity was leaked whereas the interrogator here was, allegedly, never covert. The objection isn’t that the Times published classified info; it’s that they published sensitive info, against the CIA’s wishes, for no apparent reason.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Borderline Treason from the NYT: big surprise
They have the lawyers to stall criminal and/or civil actions until 2040 or so
Janos Hunyadi on June 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Perfectly stted, AP, and that was essentialy the point of the email I sent to the author of the article a moment ago.
joewm315 on June 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM
*stated
joewm315 on June 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Sorry, I’m not going to read it. I have no need to know this guy’s name, and it’s the only ‘punitive measure’ I have against the NYT.
James on June 21, 2008 at 8:20 PM
It’s a remarkable story. Pulitzer Prize winning material.
A story that stand by itself, not diminished a bit by the removal of the interrogator’s name.
As AP suggested, had he talked would the Times have agreed to withhold his name?
Hard to argue no.
SteveMG on June 21, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Good article, and the point about Poland being the 51st state was great.
KarmiCommunist on June 21, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Finally an actual case of punitive exposure of a covert operative–not just an unfounded assertion that it happened, as with Plame.
RBMN on June 21, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Well hells bells,imagine that,a newpaper that will
do as it please’s,during The War On Terror!
Flash back to WW2,Me thinks newspapers had to go through
a filter system as not to alert the enemy,or accidently
give comfort to the enemy!
So,either the Newspapers could care less,or they don’t
believe there’s a war on!
And the 51st State,priceless,but wait a nano-second,did’t
Obama say their was 59 States!
And if the MSM,Liberal’s,think Obama’s poll numbers are
higher then McCain’s,heck you would think with the other
8 non-existent States,the numbers would be through the roof!
Hehe.
canopfor on June 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Anyone have a count on how many times the NYT has used the term ’senior officials’ as ’sources’ in their articles this last year? How about ‘experts’?
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Only if they’re saying things critical of the Bush Administration.
Apparently, concerns about reprisals for those sources is higher than concerns about action taken against CIA agents during a war.
SteveMG on June 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Funny how infrequently they feel that way. They seem to have no problem whatsoever citing unnamed sources whenever it suits their agenda. And, what about the ruckus these people made when a nobody like Plame was “outed.” The hypocrisy truly is nauseating. I wonder if they think nobody notices.
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM
I thought the article worth reading regardless.
NYT needs consistency if it is ever to get it’s credibility back.
Spirit of 1776 on June 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM
AP, publish the addresses and phone numbers of the NYT reporter, editor, etc.
Akzed on June 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM
I don’t think it is hypocrisy. What it is the a declaration of war against the Bush Adminstration and anyone connected to the GWOT. They have declared to everyone that we-know-who-you-are-and-we-will-see-you-in-jail.
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM
MIT Students Develop Revolutionary Solar Dish That is Hot Enough to Melt Steel:New solar dish from MIT concentrates sunlight intensely enough to melt steel
FIRE CANT MELT STEEL!!!
Chakra Hammer on June 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Here is a clue:
the fact that someone is employed by the CIA, or has a contract with the CIA is classified information. The fact that someone is covert is even more classified.
The identity of the contractors who go into a CIA facility to unplug the toilets, and their employer, the office janitorial staff, the vendor who changes light bulbs is also classified.
Those two bits of information in the NYTimes article leave the NYTimes open to prosecution, but the CIA doesn’t do that because it confirms the information.
This NYTimes story is a blatant, in your face, attack. They are over the line, defiantly so, knowingly so.
With all the crap in the newspapers in the last three-four days something is going on.
rockhauler on June 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM
What the heck is wrong with Pinch & Keller? They’d be abysmally stupid to make this personal.
ForNow on June 21, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Except that there was no fear that beheaders would be coming after Plame and her family.
PattyJ on June 21, 2008 at 8:40 PM
It is an old police/intell trick, like good cop bad cop. They have chosen an average Joe to RUIN in the hopes that others in the same kinds of positions will turn tail and TALK. They are flushing out game and don’t give a damn about what happens to any of the people they name because those people are ‘war-criminals’.
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM
If this guy gets murdered by terrorists does his family get to sue the NY Times?
Chakra Hammer on June 21, 2008 at 8:42 PM
If you talk about the Administration’s policies, we’ll withhold your name.
If you don’t, we’ll reveal it.
Smart journalism. Ruthless as hell.
With no concern about the country.
SteveMG on June 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM
The New York Times is an anti-American, subversive pile of dog feces. It’s past time that it was charged with crimes against the United States, closed down and those responsible for its behavior tried for the crimes.
rplat on June 21, 2008 at 8:47 PM
This just affirms (not that I needed any encouragement) my decision many years ago now, not to knowingly allow the NYTs to profit even one fraction of one cent of income from me.
Yes, that means I’ve not read a single thing they’ve published, have never visited any of their Internet properties, and don’t even look at their front page as it sits on the newstand at 7-11 — and never will again.
Hey y’all do what’s right for you, but I can’t countenance giving them any cash flow at all, I mean it seems kind of self-defeating to help them carry on, doesn’t it?
ShoreMark on June 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM
If this guy winds up dead, his blood will be on the NYTimes.
How do they sleep at night?
Techie on June 21, 2008 at 8:51 PM
I hope the New York Times is happy the next time an American CIA officer is killed. I hope they throw a big frickin party.
indythinker on June 21, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Quick, somebody tell the Mythbusters they were wrong about Archemedes!
James on June 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM
And now, that demand must be met. Thanks you Liberal traitorous sons of bitches.
If I were a member of his family, a law suit would be the least of their problems.
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM
FIRE CAN”T MELT STEEL!!!
Chakra Hammer on June 21,2008 at 8:37PM.
Chakra Hammer:Well,that’s nice technology,but I wish they
would stop pussy-footin around,and just build
a mother of all magnifying glass,and have the
first operational,orbiting magnifying glass
and with a little tweaking,presto,fried ants,
oops,I mean fried targets! haha.
canopfor on June 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM
And now, that demand must be met. Thanks you Liberal traitorous SOBs.
If I were a member of his family, a law suit would be the least of their problems.
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Leaking this guy’s name might get him killed. Armitage “leaking” Plame’s name got her and her Saudi-serving husband a bookdeal.
18-1 on June 21, 2008 at 9:01 PM
It isn’t a leak. It’s a billboard.
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Oh come on AP. I thought this had been debunked.
She was, I believe, covert at some time. She was not, however, when Armitage leaked her name.
VolMagic on June 21, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Allah, I thought Plame’s undercover status had lapsed. It isn’t a permanent designation, and it had been years since she’d been undercover. Even Fitzpatrick said there was no “outing” of an undercover agent. That’s why he had to go after Scooter Libby for a process crime, to rationalize his rather expensive investigation.
sondiehl on June 21, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Its an old police/intell trick,like good cop bad cop.
Limerick on June 21,2008 at 8:41PM.
Limerick: Sounds like the NYT’s ripped a page from
the KGB playbook!
canopfor on June 21, 2008 at 9:05 PM
I thought Plame’s status at the time Armitage revealed it was classified but not undercover/covert.
SteveMG on June 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Volmagic, you’re just saying that becasue she was in who’s who!
or as Ed said, “No one gave Novak Plame’s name. Who’s Who had it as part of Joe Wilson’s listing. If her identity was such a secret, then one can reasonably assume that (a) Joe Wilson wouldn’t have listed her under her professional name, but as Valerie Wilson; (b) CIA spokesman Bill Harlow wouldn’t have confirmed her identity to Novak when Novak inquired about it; and (c) Joe Wilson wouldn’t have leaked details of the mission to the Washington Post and New York Times, and would have refrained from writing his own op-eds at the Times under his own name.“
Spirit of 1776 on June 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Buckley
Ames
Intelligence Identities Protection act
From the above link:
rockhauler on June 21, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Just a little more back-up to VolMagic’s argument: according to a State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research memo (and further information here and here).
So with everything we know about Plame, every time she traveled outside the US, she may have been “covert”, but “covert” in that she wasn’t wearing a Hi-My Name’s Valerie, CIA Employee!. Exit question thus: why wouldn’t a CIA Interrogator, a high-value target from European leftist to AQ terrorists, travel the same way to avoid attention?
TheEJS on June 21, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Arguing about Plame is completely immaterial. The NYT just knowingly put the lives of this man and his family in jeopardy. Not to mention making his useless in future interrogations. They just revealed the methods we use to gather information including the box device! They just revealed our allies and their roles. They just revealed the location of important facilities. They just put the lives of Americans in jeapordy. Who gives a rat’s arse about Plame in the face of this betrayal of the country?
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Stepping into the fray,my impression,only listening to
news outlets,Valerie was a CIA spy,working covert!
Then,she was revealed,and she was compromised!
I think that’s how the Lefty MSM wanted it to sound
like,or the impression of!
canopfor on June 21, 2008 at 9:14 PM
No surprises here folks. The New York Slimes, are one of the only American news papers to make a free delivery, directly to Osama Bin Laden’s cave. They’ve been the eyes, and ears for the America’s enemies!
byteshredder on June 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Looks like I had too many links, and the filter ate it..
here’s just one example
“outing CIA agents”
and they’re proud of it! Its a ‘progressive’ web site.
I had another one where they were bragging about naming over 2,000
rockhauler on June 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM
The Times forgot to include his telephone number at work,
his home address and telephone number,
the year, make, model, and license plate number of his vehicle,
his route to and from work….
/sarc off
The Times has no reason to release his name and employer.
He should sue the Times for big bucks for invasion of privacy and for the future cost of security measures to protect himself and his family.
slp on June 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM
For those who want to…
letters-AT-nytimes-DOT-com
or for your Reps, Senators, and major newspapers, publications, and talk shows….
“>Links to everyone
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 9:29 PM
links to everyone
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Intelligence Identities Protection act
(Hope hotair doesn’t get mad about all the links to other sites. Somebody give me a clue. What’s the policy about linking to other sites?)
rockhauler on June 21, 2008 at 9:34 PM
May the Times management team be infested with the fleas of 10,000 camels.
Zorro on June 21, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Will the brotherhood of agents stand up for one of their own who has needlessly been put in jeopardy? If not now, when. If not him, who?
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I am so disgusted with the New York Times right now. This isn’t the first time they put the country at risk either. It’s as if the New York Times is working with the terrorists.
SoulGlo on June 21, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Now, help me here- exactly where was the NYT of the “outing” of Valerie Plame?
Amendment X on June 21, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Plame wasn’t covert. I mean, according to the silly ol’ legal definition.
“Under cover” does not seem to have a legal definition. Makes it convenient for the NYTimes, huh?
misterpeasea on June 21, 2008 at 9:54 PM
I could be wrong, but I worked with both DIA and CIA in Iraq and all field agents (as far as I know) from the paramilitary guys to case officers and interrogators to field analysts were all considered “covert”.
davenp35 on June 21, 2008 at 9:58 PM
The objection isn’t that the Times published classified info; it’s that they published sensitive info, against the CIA’s wishes, for no apparent reason.
Ah….NO…..the NYT had a VERY good reason for what they did; they are a bunch of Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Leftist Democratic Traitor Nutbags!
That’s their only reason for the things that they do; all of which are deliberately designed to hurt the President Politically, and hurt America in general, and undermine the Troops and the GWOT…
Its that simple….
Dale in Atlanta on June 21, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Martinez and his family may have to disappear into the witness protection program. I doubt the NYT thought about the family. After all, it’s Martinez’ fault for participating in the eeeeevil Bushhilter CIA interrogations.
Wethal on June 21, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Absolutely. Because remember, the chronology of events and criticisms at the time of the whole Plame affair were far more fluid than that MSNBC article, written in 07, leads one to believe. The corresponding criticism leveled at the Bush Administration was that, whether or not she was deep undercover, because of BushCo, a very unfavorable climate for good intelligence operatives had been created. And here the Times is doing the very same thing. But in this instance, by their own standards, it’s even worse. Here’s why: It goes without saying that Martinez is the kind of “Spook” the Times likes. He’s more cerebral than those knuckledragging, gung-ho waterboarding thugs. He wanted to “talk” with KSM. It is obvious that the kind of climate that produces and “nurtures” this kind of operative within the CIA, is the kind that the MSM, including the Times, was fearing to have been irreparably “damaged” due to BushRoveMcCheney when they evilly “leaked” Plame’s name, thus hamstringin our intelligence capabilities at a time when we need it. So what does the Times do when they find “their-kind-of-guy” in the CIA, a guy that won’t waterboard, a guy that is cerebral? Why they give his name and current employer of course! Thus THEY, the Times, has damaged the kind of climate that they thought Bush damaged with Plame. Thanks to the Times, the Cerebral agents will realize that their identities, along with the Neanderthal’s, aren’t safe with the NYT either.
Weight of Glory on June 21, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Dear NYT,
Thanks for his name and where he works. Where is the photo and his kid’s school schedule? I just re-upped my subscription to your wonderful paper. Keep up the good work!
Cordially,
Osama Bin Laden
AmericanDad on June 21, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I wonder if the reporters and editors would mind their names, addresses, and home phone numbers being published on the web. Just so people could contact them with news tips, you know.
Wethal on June 21, 2008 at 10:16 PM
The news organization that leaked the name of Saddam’s first trial judge — who was subsequently murdered — declined to comment for this story.
Dave Shay on June 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM
What would Lincoln do. To the NYT if they pulled this
stinkin crap back then ?
I’d have to say stockade or deportation.
Texyank on June 21, 2008 at 10:32 PM
“Duece” Martinez?
heh
franksalterego on June 21, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s latest opinion, Martinez may be subpoenaed to testify for habeas corpus hearings for the rest of his life - which, thanks to the NYT, might not be that long.
Wethal on June 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Hey, Ed, was this one of the newspapers that you thought would start giving barry hussein obama a hard time?
Let me see…barry hates America, the nyt hates America…
I don’t think they’ll be backing mccain..
peacenprosperity on June 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM
also, somebody probably also pointed this out; wasn’t this the same Newspaper that was upset with the Bush Administration for supposedly “outting” Valerie Plame?
I guess those are two different cases, in their eyes?
Dale in Atlanta on June 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I expect the good news coming out of Iraq, which even the NYT had to eventually admit, was too much.
Low American casualty count? Let’s see what we can do to raise it and blame it on Bush while we’re at it, too.
Wethal on June 21, 2008 at 10:45 PM
So when this man and or his family fall victim to an untimely accident what will the NYT stance be then?
We have Gitmo guards who hide their identity for just this reason. Stay classy NYT and maybe somebody can create a widget showing how many Americans you have killed with your reckless reoporting.
Just A Grunt on June 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
My firewall has suddenly began to refuse connections to NYT. It is complaining that it is blocked or something.
Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I hope the old gray lady had the foresight to aline her building with Mecca.
shaken on June 21, 2008 at 11:04 PM
A new low.
WisCon on June 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM
P.S. Please be so kind as to include a Google Map of his home and schools next time!
Peace be with you!
Buy Danish on June 21, 2008 at 11:48 PM
The so called nonsense about Plame being undercover and thus her life endangered because of her exposure has always been and will always remain total BS. This guy interrogated top level AQ operatives undercover or not. Whose head would the enemy rather have on a pike?
NotCoach on June 21, 2008 at 11:50 PM
gosh i hate this damn paper and i just wish it would go out of business…
blatantblue on June 21, 2008 at 11:51 PM
It’s not “borderline” - it IS Treason.
So - NOW the Times has INDICTED Rove - who DIDN’T reveal Plames’s name - for revealing the name of a Government Secretary
AND
Rationalized ACTUALLY Revealing the name of a REAL undercover agent.
grtflmark on June 21, 2008 at 11:57 PM
All this sort of despicable stuff only matters so long as people actually read and respond to the New York Times; as soon as they are out of business, we can focus on real reporters giving us real and useful information.
What will you do, and not do, to assist the exiting?
Time to make a pledge…
LaMonte on June 22, 2008 at 12:32 AM
NYT has been blowing legitimate intel and putting agents in peril for years now.
They don’t care about it, because they are still so angry at Bush Cheney & Co. that a non-secret, overt agent was outted by their political opponent, Richard Armitage.
hunter on June 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I wonder if Mr. Martinez reads blogs? If so, a great big thank you sir.
Sue on June 22, 2008 at 12:50 AM
What needs to be published is not only the names and addresses of the NYT Editorial Board, but that of the schools that their children attend……….. What, does that make them nervous?
Seven Percent Solution on June 22, 2008 at 12:58 AM
So, it’s not OK to “out” Plame.
But, it is OK to reveal the interrogator.
Liberals will never get it!
Skullf15 on June 22, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I disagree, I think it was a political decision intended to frighten other interrogators into another line of work. Leftists hate the CIA (despite the fact that it seems sometimes to be crawling with them) and this is the Times’ little way of helping break morale.
What is going on here? Why are any of these people talking to the Times and selling out another agent? When will this group ever be brought under control?
Nosferightu on June 22, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Um, I’m sorry, but the NYT’s equated Valerie Plame to revealing troop movements and agitated mightily in an op-ed for drastic measures in the form of a special prosecutor.
NYT: Plame Leak Akin to Troop Locations [Nathan Goulding]
What. A. Bunch. Of. Hacks.
Topsecretk9 on June 22, 2008 at 3:04 AM
WRONG WRONG
Joe Wilson IDENTIFIED “Plame” in numerous published items, resumes and “Who’s who” and he went on national TV to rebut this saying:
Topsecretk9 on June 22, 2008 at 3:44 AM
We didn’t know this?
Allah - are you a plant? Why twice?
Ugly on June 22, 2008 at 4:32 AM
That Makes Two Of Us!
Teddy on June 22, 2008 at 4:35 AM
Ugly? You a plant? you don’t read links do ya?
Topsecretk9 on June 22, 2008 at 4:36 AM
I read this, right? Right?
Ugly on June 22, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Allah - post the info again.
Ugly on June 22, 2008 at 4:42 AM
We should all post secret info, when it becomes public.
I makes us more American.
Ugly on June 22, 2008 at 4:44 AM
Ugly,
can you point to any news reports that associates the person in question with having performed Harry Potter reading like “interrogations” or any interrogations, please. Thank you.
Topsecretk9 on June 22, 2008 at 5:10 AM
As a side note, I realized why the Democrats called their pretend hearing of the year nothing burger with McCellen.
It was old style politicians thinking it might dominate while they sold the nutters down the road.
HEH, that testimony was a blip, and the nut cases noticed their party isn’t As nutz.
Topsecretk9 on June 22, 2008 at 5:15 AM
War funding
and
FISA
all passed in this Democratically run Congress.
Topsecretk9 on June 22, 2008 at 5:17 AM
UGH! They need to be sued and the editor hung for treason. Who the he** buys their paper anymore anyway?
I loved how they used these adjectives—senior official, one person, officers, colleagues–throughout the article about their sources, but gave the interrogator’s name. They have endangered him and his family. I hope they are proud of themselves.
As for waterboarding…anything that gets those cretins to talk and stops another terrorist attack is fine by me!
becki51758 on June 22, 2008 at 6:44 AM
The NYT not only outed Martinez, it outed his company, which will no doubt be picketed by protestors in orange jumpsuits, and will have pickets/terrorists take employee license numbers, follow employees home, etc.
The NYT wanted to put the whole company out of business and its employees at risk.
Wethal on June 22, 2008 at 6:55 AM
So, the sleazy pricks who gave information without authority (I am guessing on this) get annonymity and the guy who sticks to the rules gets screwed.
At some stage this has to stop. I do not know how, but it has to stop.
davod on June 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM
How many of these quislings are on the defendents witness list.
davod on June 22, 2008 at 7:08 AM
Exactly right.
It is high time that the editors and publisher of The New York Times were indicted for high treason.
Freedom of the press does not extend to giving aid and comfort to our enemies in wartime. What the hell is the matter with the Bush administration? They have let this crap go on now for years. Remember the stories about ‘wiretapping’ and the terrorist-finance monitoring? It is time to hold these traitors to account.
MrLynn on June 22, 2008 at 7:38 AM
When is the FBI going to visit the offices of the NY Slimes and present them with a variety of warrants arresting the senior staff, seizing the computer records, and shutting down the presses and web servers?
In WW2 this would not have been tolerated. When is W going to get off his rear end and realize that the MSM is committing treasonous acts?
I also won’t read the article because I have no need to know who this guy’s interrogator was. I sincerely hope this guy has an FFL or local firearms license and has enough weapons and ammo to protect himself and his family.
Mooseman on June 22, 2008 at 7:40 AM
More to the point, it makes the decision to name him identical to what the Times charges the President with doing to Joe Wilson.
Hypocrites will out. Pun intended.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture.” Thanks.)
philwynk on June 22, 2008 at 7:55 AM
We’ll stipulate that the NYTimes are anti-American scumbags.
But having said that, this is the frickin CIA they’re screwing with.
This is the one agency that should have the balls to deal surreptitiously with these type of adversaries.
there it is on June 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM
I wouldn’t defend the NYT for this but anyone who undertakes a ’secret’ job for the CIA takes a great risk. The CIA isn’t known for protecting any employee without a GS rating. I’m afraid the cat is ‘on his own’ now.
ptg on June 22, 2008 at 9:05 AM
In WWII I do not recall there being censorship of the US press. The press might well have acted in the greater good by checking with the government and acting upon the reccomendations.
Then again, there may well have been less of the self serving, ambitious, lizardoid, second-guessing, holier than thou, night crawlers, working for the government.
PS:
I know night crawlers are actually good fish bait, but I am running out of sleaze terms for the home grown rat bags and night crawler sounds sleazy.
davod on June 22, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Maybe we need to let off some steam in a positive way.
I suggest a competition for the best term to describe a person who leaks unauthorised information to the media.
There must be educated people who can come up with far better polite terms (The English language is a wonderfully descriptive) than my poor efort above.
davod on June 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »