New York Times Outs CIA Interrogator

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.
Without the Bad Cop, or "Knuckedraggers" as mentioned in the article, the Good Cop cannot be effective IMO.

The reason it was wrong to mention Plame's name to the press was that it potentially put her in danger, although it must be mentioned that she had not done covert work for several years and she had probably already been compromised by Aldrich Ames. The DCI asked The Times not to mention this guys name for the same reason and they chose to err on the side of a stronger story. Is it unreasonable to think that terrorists would seek retribution against this man? I think not. It proves that the Left's outrage over the Plame case was a convenient affectation that allowed them to attack the administration. They care nothing about the safety of our intelligence officers.

Disregarding the fact that this man no longer works for the CIA, I thinking rendering the two circumstances in question entirely different, it certainly seems that you have changed your stance on the importance of protecting the identity of CIA agents since your Free Scooter Libby thread http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/18672-free-scooter-libby.html, I mean, while we are discussing people changing their beliefs to suit their agendas.

One might also question, since this article is explicitely pro "harsh interrogation," skipping the debate about the legality and precedent of these techniques to instead extoll their effectiveness when used in conjunction with this interrogator's good cop approach, exactly what sort of nefarious leftist agenda is being served by publishing the man's name. It's not as if someone's identity is being leaked here as political retribution, which is at least a coherent motive, so what does the Times gain here? Seems to me this was a journalistic decision (one they actually explain in the article) and while you may not agree with it as journalism, doesn't strike me as serving an agenda.

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.

i'm not talking about interrogation sites and if you got the bill for your proposal, you might change your mind.

Edit: Better judgement. I wnat no part of this discussion.

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.
First off the leaking of Plame was not illegal because she was no longer acting as a covert agent.

Someone that I know works for the "Department of Defense" and cannot reveal what branch of the government he/she actually works for much less state his/her job. So, coming out and saying that someone is a CIA Interrogator is outing him.