NY Times Repsonds to giving Al Qaeda the Identity of CIA Interrogator

Posted By Blackfive

RE:  New York Times Announces CIA Interrogator's Name to Al Qaeda (June 22, 2008)

Last Sunday, the Public Editor for the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, posted the response to the reader inquiries about the Times reporter, Scott Shane, using the name of a CIA interpreter who has interrogated some of the worst and most evil human beings in the history of our planet.  (Side Note:  check out Shane's body of work - very unbalanced and speculative and obviously supported by the editors)

The Public Editor's statement is a response justifying the risk of a American's family for their story...

...Scott Shane, the reporter, and his editors said that using the name was necessary for credibility. Martinez was, after all, the central character in the story. They said that nobody provided evidence that Martinez would be in any greater danger than the scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda...

Like the NYTimes needed to publish his name because it *cough* NEVER uses anonymous sources...puh-lease, that's total BS.

Then, here's the kicker.  After getting the CIA response asking the NYTimes to NOT publish the name, the NYT reporter weighed the danger to Martinez and went ahead after considering the threat. 

...Shane said he had sought the C.I.A.’s cooperation in reporting the story but was rebuffed by the agency and by Martinez, who now works for a private contractor. After Shane contacted friends and associates of Martinez and sought an interview with him, Mark Mansfield, the C.I.A.’s director of public affairs, sent a strongly worded letter to Dean Baquet, The Times’s Washington bureau chief. Naming the interrogator “would be reckless and irresponsible,” Mansfield said, and “could endanger the lives of this American and his family” by making them Qaeda targets. And in the “poisoned atmosphere” of the debate over the C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques, Mansfield wrote, Martinez could be “vulnerable to any misguided person who believes they need to confront ‘torture’ directly.”

Baquet asked for a meeting to discuss the C.I.A.’s request. Mansfield refused. He told me the letter said it all and nothing could be accomplished by a meeting. But to Baquet, Shane and Rebecca Corbett, the editor of the story, the refusal suggested that the C.I.A. was not actually that concerned. The Times has been asked before by the C.I.A. to withhold information — it has sometimes agreed, sometimes refused — and serious requests have usually come from the top of the agency, with an opportunity to discuss them.

But the reporter and editors said they were still worried about Martinez’s fears and tried to assess how realistic they were. Shane said he repeatedly pressed the C.I.A. for more information. He called John Kiriakou, a former covert operative who was the first to question another top Qaeda terrorist, Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou voluntarily went public last December, and Shane wanted to know what happened. Kiriakou mentioned a death threat published in Pakistan and didn’t go into much more detail. Kiriakou said he advised Shane not to use the name...

So, unless the Director of the CIA gets involved, the Times won't consider requests for anonymity.  Check that.  Even if the Director asks, you might not be covered. 

Then the Public Editor goes on to describe the amount of hatemail Scott Shane received and that Martinez has received no threats at all.  The Times thinks Shane is a hero.

...Bennett said The Times did “a terrible thing.” He said Martinez had been threatened repeatedly by Mohammed and others he interrogated but they did not know his identity. Now their friends do, at least to some degree. Martinez has received no threats since the article was published. Shane, on the other hand, has received abusive e-mail bordering on the threatening...

To anyone who's worked in the Intelligence business, Scott Shane is a pariah and should be shunned for the biased hitman that he is - his search for a Pulitzer takes precedence over a "desk-bound analyst"'s safety.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

NY Times Repsonds to giving Al Qaeda the Identity of CIA Interrogator

RE:  New York Times Announces CIA Interrogator's Name to Al Qaeda (June 22, 2008)

Last Sunday, the Public Editor for the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, posted the response to the reader inquiries about the Times reporter, Scott Shane, using the name of a CIA interpreter who has interrogated some of the worst and most evil human beings in the history of our planet.  (Side Note:  check out Shane's body of work - very unbalanced and speculative and obviously supported by the editors)

The Public Editor's statement is a response justifying the risk of a American's family for their story...

...Scott Shane, the reporter, and his editors said that using the name was necessary for credibility. Martinez was, after all, the central character in the story. They said that nobody provided evidence that Martinez would be in any greater danger than the scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda...

Like the NYTimes needed to publish his name because it *cough* NEVER uses anonymous sources...puh-lease, that's total BS.

Then, here's the kicker.  After getting the CIA response asking the NYTimes to NOT publish the name, the NYT reporter weighed the danger to Martinez and went ahead after considering the threat. 

...Shane said he had sought the C.I.A.’s cooperation in reporting the story but was rebuffed by the agency and by Martinez, who now works for a private contractor. After Shane contacted friends and associates of Martinez and sought an interview with him, Mark Mansfield, the C.I.A.’s director of public affairs, sent a strongly worded letter to Dean Baquet, The Times’s Washington bureau chief. Naming the interrogator “would be reckless and irresponsible,” Mansfield said, and “could endanger the lives of this American and his family” by making them Qaeda targets. And in the “poisoned atmosphere” of the debate over the C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques, Mansfield wrote, Martinez could be “vulnerable to any misguided person who believes they need to confront ‘torture’ directly.”

Baquet asked for a meeting to discuss the C.I.A.’s request. Mansfield refused. He told me the letter said it all and nothing could be accomplished by a meeting. But to Baquet, Shane and Rebecca Corbett, the editor of the story, the refusal suggested that the C.I.A. was not actually that concerned. The Times has been asked before by the C.I.A. to withhold information — it has sometimes agreed, sometimes refused — and serious requests have usually come from the top of the agency, with an opportunity to discuss them.

But the reporter and editors said they were still worried about Martinez’s fears and tried to assess how realistic they were. Shane said he repeatedly pressed the C.I.A. for more information. He called John Kiriakou, a former covert operative who was the first to question another top Qaeda terrorist, Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou voluntarily went public last December, and Shane wanted to know what happened. Kiriakou mentioned a death threat published in Pakistan and didn’t go into much more detail. Kiriakou said he advised Shane not to use the name...

So, unless the Director of the CIA gets involved, the Times won't consider requests for anonymity.  Check that.  Even if the Director asks, you might not be covered. 

Then the Public Editor goes on to describe the amount of hatemail Scott Shane received and that Martinez has received no threats at all.  The Times thinks Shane is a hero.

...Bennett said The Times did “a terrible thing.” He said Martinez had been threatened repeatedly by Mohammed and others he interrogated but they did not know his identity. Now their friends do, at least to some degree. Martinez has received no threats since the article was published. Shane, on the other hand, has received abusive e-mail bordering on the threatening...

To anyone who's worked in the Intelligence business, Scott Shane is a pariah and should be shunned for the biased hitman that he is - his search for a Pulitzer takes precedence over a "desk-bound analyst"'s safety.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00e5538ea3d38833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NY Times Repsonds to giving Al Qaeda the Identity of CIA Interrogator: