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-lo...ter-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.