<http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/07/nyt_disclosure.html> Intel Official Blasts NYT Disclosure of CIA Interrogator's Name
Today, July 21, 2008, 9 hours ago | Steven Aftergood http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/07/nyt_disclosure.html <http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/07/nyt_disclosure.html> When the New York Times published the name of a Central Intelligence Agency interrogator last month, it potentially placed him in jeopardy for no valid reason, wrote Joel <http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/07/odni071808.html> Brenner, the ODNI National Counterintelligence Executive, in a letter to the New York Times Public Editor that was distributed by the ODNI last week. "Journalists face difficult decisions every day about the prudence of publishing private information," Mr. Brenner <http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/07/odni071808.html> wrote. "But in this case the decision to out the individual had nothing to do with the media's responsibility to inform the public about important government policies or actions." In a <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html> ground-breaking story by reporter Scott Shane on June 22, the Times described how a CIA interrogator had successfully managed the interrogation of 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed using legal, non-coercive means. But over the objections of the CIA and the interrogator himself, the Times chose to disclose his name. An <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/web22ksmnote.html> editor's note accompanying the story noted that the interrogator had never worked under cover and asserted that publication of his name "was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article." In a July 6 article, the New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, investigated the decision to publish the name and concurred with it. To withhold such information, he wrote <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06pubed.html> , "especially in this age of increasing government secrecy, would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government's most important and controversial actions." That's "nonsense," responded Joel <http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/07/odni071808.html> Brenner, the ODNI official. Disclosure of the individual's name "had nothing to do with the media's responsibility to inform the public about important government policies or actions," he wrote. "The Times was going to tell the public about these interrogations whether the interrogator's name was used or not." According to <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06pubed.html> Clark Hoyt, Times executive editor Bill Keller said that he had discounted a request from CIA director Michael Hayden to withhold the name because the CIA could not cite a specific threat to the interrogator. "I had this impression that he [Hayden] was doing it out of respect for [the interrogator]'s and his family's concerns more than a concern the C.I.A. had." Mr. Brenner <http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/07/odni071808.html> wrote that the Times "trivialized the risk to the man by putting him to the impossible burden of showing with near certainty that he would be harmed. This was morally confused." One might also argue against Mr. Keller that the concerns of the interrogator and his family were entitled to more consideration than those of the CIA, not less, since it was his privacy and his security that were at stake. But that was not the Times' view, nor that of most other reporters <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/25/DI200806 2502530.html> and columnists <http://www.slate.com/id/2195560/> who have commented on the subject. The Times has previously been criticized not only for disclosing classified information but also for withholding it from publication. Although Times reporters learned of the Bush Administration's warrantless electronic surveillance program in 2004, it was not reported in the newspaper until December 2005. In effect, critics <http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/14/times/index.html> said, the Times helped the Administration for more than a year to conceal the classified program despite its probable illegality. U.S. intelligence officials, meanwhile, are poorly positioned to offer rational criticism of press disclosure practices since their own secrecy practices are so manifestly irrational. For example, although the 2007 budget for the National Intelligence Program was officially declassified and published last year ($43.5 billion), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said last month <http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2008/06/odni060408.pdf> (pdf) that the 2006 budget figure will remain classified. _____ Outing the CIA Interrogator: Scrambled Logic at The Times By Joel F. Brenner http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/07/odni071808.html In late June, The Times ran a story <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html> about a former Central Intelligence Agency interrogator who, in the words of its public editor, "used shrewd psychology, not rough stuff, to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, to talk" ( <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06pubed.html> "Weighing the Risk," Clark Hoyt, July 6, 2008). The Times published the interrogator's name over the objections of his lawyers and the CIA, who fear for his safety. In supporting this decision, The Times' public editor invoked "the public's right to know." But this was a conclusion, not a premise. Unfortunately neither The Times nor its public editor has examined this asserted public interest with the same appetite they displayed for examining and discounting the interrogator's interest in his own safety. So let's correct the balance. The public editor cited two reasons to publish the name. First, the reporter said that "using the name was necessary for credibility." Really? Great stories are often told using pseudonyms, and The Times frequently withholds attributions from its stories. It generally does so for good reasons that its readers understand. What The Times may have meant is that by using the man's real name, the story would be a better read. I doubt it. But if so, The Times was weighing the man's safety against a literary interest, not the public interest. The second asserted reason for publishing the man's real name, tossed off in the last sentence of the public editor's four-column piece, was to avoid hobbling news organizations "when trying to tell the public about some of the government's most important and controversial actions." This is nonsense. The Times was going to tell the public about these interrogations whether the interrogator's name was used or not. On the other side of the balance, the public editor cited the case of another interrogator who, when his name was made public, suffered more than a dozen death threats, had his house put under police guard, and was told to take his family out of the country till the affair blew over. In the public editor's own words, he also "lost his job with a major accounting firm because executives expressed fear that Al Qaeda could attack its offices to get him ..." These are substantial prices to pay for outing an identity. By publishing this interrogator's real name, The Times put him at risk for similar treatment - and worse. Journalists face difficult decisions every day about the prudence of publishing private information. But in this case the decision to out the individual had nothing to do with the media's responsibility to inform the public about important government policies or actions. The Times also trivialized the risk to the man by putting him to the impossible burden of showing with near certainty that he would be harmed. This was morally confused. This man and many others like him undertake difficult, dangerous, and lawful missions on behalf of their country, and they deserve better from The Times. (F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
