Goodbye Mercy!
Thumbs Up

New York Times Announces CIA Interrogator's Name to Al Qaeda

The New York Times either thought this through and didn't care about the life of an interrogator OR they are lacking in the mental capacity department...maybe both.  In this post that I caught over at NRO from Greg Pollowitz, we find that the New York Times decided to announce the identity of one of the best non-torture-using interrogators we now, Al Qaeda knows who he is.  Read on...and then we have some Chops Bustin' to do:

Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation
Story by Scott Shane

WASHINGTON — In a makeshift prison in the north of Poland, Al Qaeda’s engineer of mass murder faced off against his Central Intelligence Agency interrogator. It was 18 months after the 9/11 attacks, and the invasion of Iraq was giving Muslim extremists new motives for havoc. If anyone knew about the next plot, it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a C.I.A. offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called “knuckledraggers.”


Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request. (An editors’ note on this issue has been posted on The Times’s Web site.)...

EXCUSE ME?!  What the hell are they thinking?

This reads like a vendetta against the personnel doing time for blowing Valerie Plame's cover.  But Valerie Plame gets more protection while serving canapes to political hatchetmen and has a lot less to lose than this interrogator who questioned the most vile and evil men in the history of the world...[for our opinions on the Plame issue, Google Blackfive and Plame - suffice it to say we were for severe punishment for revealing a covert CIA person].

So, at NRO, Pollowitz contacts the NYT and does a follow up on where the interrogator is now.  Read the whole piece, then come back here and send the NYTimes Public Editor and Scott Shane some polite and professional emails describing their distinct lack of honor and integrity.


The author of the article (and several others about the CIA) has a page with a contact form and a listing of all of his articles - Scott Shane.

The NYTimes Public Editor email - Clark Hoyt

Update: Allahpundit has more at Hot Air.  Allah looks at another potential aspect of this story:

...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...

Update 2:  Steve Shippert at The Tank on NRO has a more heated response to the NYTimes and Scott Shane in particular (deservedly so):

...Furthermore, the false caveat of "never working undercover" as justification for publication is a non sequitur. Recall back in 2005 how Scott Shane did his New York Times journalistic duty in drawing attention to the CIA's undercover air operations. Operational secrecy wasn't a concern then, now was it?

As far as Scott Shane is concerned, he's been busy for years trying to blow the cover off vital CIA operations — operations that simply require a level of secrecy to function. And please keep in mind he does not do this through sheer personal brilliance...

...He is a tool, not a brilliant journalist...