New York Times Outs CIA Interrogator

The New York Times thinks its awful if Karl Rove does it, but if it serves their pathetic interests, it's full speed ahead:

Inside a 9/11 mastermind's interrogation - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/22/america/22ksm.php)

"Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. General Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA, and a lawyer representing 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 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."

just more do as i say not as i do i guess...

sucks that when the right does it, it's horrible (which it is), but when they do it, it's no big deal.

just more do as i say not as i do i guess...

sucks that when the right does it, it's horrible (which it is), but when they do it, it's no big deal.


Knowing how reporters are, I can almost hear this Scott Shane saying something like: "You know I'd be much less inclined to use your name if you were to gve me an interview". It just reinforces the age old truth that you can't trust people who have two first names.

the big difference is that Karl Rove worked directly for the president. just a minor detail

Dude has never worked undercover? How can you out someone if he doesn't work undercover? Does the mere fact that you work for the CIA put your name off limits? And why are his colleagues naming him? Is this guy really comparable to Valerie Plame (career covert agent) or Douglas Feith? What's even more disturbing is that this guy is a career narcotics analyst and had no terrorism expertise and no interrogation experience and was doing some serious dirty work.

I suppose everyone at the CIA is trying to cover their own asses at this point and I'm sure he doesn't appreciate everyone pointing their dirty fingers at him. I imagine that, while relatively comfy, no one wants to go to a federal prison or accused of war crimes.

As others have noted, the Plame leak is distinguishable. Plame was a covert agent, whereas the CIA interrogator here was not. Moreover, the President and the Executive Branch (i.e., the people who are charged with executing the laws Congress passed) are and should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the press.

I think, however, the more interesting question posed by the article is, "When is torture acceptable?" Some people on the left often say "torture is NEVER acceptable under ANY circumstances." However, nearly every single one of those people would also make an exception if presented with the classic hypothetical, "Well what if a terrorism suspect knew the location of a nuclear device that was about to go off?" Some people on the right, the so-called "law and order" folks, apparently don't think so much of laws that limit the government's right to knock the snot out of suspected terrorists.

I am not sure where the line between perissible and impermissible torture is or what exactly constitutes torture. I want the government to be able to do just about whatever it takes to prevent another 9/11. On the other hand, I'm a law and order guy who generally does not like to give the government broad powers, especially the power to detain and kick the crap out of suspected terrorists. It's a tough issue with no easy answers.

Not a covert agent, as saden says. It's a different situation.

The interesting point in the article, IMO, is that Martinez's interrogation technique is not of the "aggressive" nature. It's the slow relationship-building kind that many in the intelligence community hold works far better than physical intimidation and torture. It's not clear to me that there's any reason to use the more aggressive methods--it does not get better info. And that's completely independent of the moral and political costs of using the aggressive methods.

It's an interesting article.

Dude has never worked undercover? How can you out someone if he doesn't work undercover? Does the mere fact that you work for the CIA put your name off limits? And why are his colleagues naming him? Is this guy really comparable to Valerie Plame (career covert agent) or Douglas Feith? What's even more disturbing is that this guy is a career narcotics analyst and had no terrorism expertise and no interrogation experience and was doing some serious dirty work.

I suppose everyone at the CIA is trying to cover their own asses at this point and I'm sure he doesn't appreciate everyone pointing their dirty fingers at him. I imagine that, while relatively comfy, no one wants to go to a federal prison or accused of war crimes.

you don't want to point out who does what, cause it makes it easier to target specific people or infrastructure.

there's a lot of "stuff" that happens in certain places that people just don't know about, and that privacy helps save a lot of money on security.

i'm sorry i can't give you more specific examples, but that's life.

you don't want to point out who does what, cause it makes it easier to target specific people or infrastructure.

there's a lot of "stuff" that happens in certain places that people just don't know about, and that privacy helps save a lot of money on security.

i'm sorry i can't give you more specific examples, but that's life.

Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete. Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it.

It's the slow relationship-building kind that many in the intelligence community hold works far better than physical intimidation and torture.

I think it probably depends on who is being subjected to physical intimidation and torture. "Aggressive techniques" certainly yield a lot of false confessions, but they also get some people to talk who would not otherwise do so. Ask John McCain.