N.Y. Times Names Names, Jeopardizes Safety — Again

National News, Intelligence Community, Islamic-Fascist (Enemy & Their Supporters), Studies, Analysis & Opinions

By: Ronald Kessler -- With its recent story naming a CIA analyst who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, The New York Times has once again undermined our safety.

Fearing retribution, the agency asked the paper not to name the CIA analyst. The paper ran his name anyway, saying it generally withholds names only in the case of “victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating undercover.”

While the operative was not serving undercover, the fact that he interrogated the architect of the 9/11 plot was classified. Naming him added nothing to the Times story. But it will make him a possible target of al-Qaida and will make other CIA officers wonder if they want to risk being involved in any sensitive intelligence operations if their identity may be publicly disclosed, jeopardizing their safety and the safety of their families.

The case for withholding his name was thus even more compelling than not running the name of Valerie Plame, who was technically undercover but not in any danger. Yet the Times has run 521 stories suggesting it was wrong for the White House, and specifically Karl Rove, to divulge her name. Only 27 of the articles mentioned the person who actually leaked her name to columnist Robert Novak, former State Department official Richard Armitage, who ironically has been critical of the Bush administration.

The New York Times previously disclosed the existence of the Bush administration’s secret National Security Agency program for intercepting calls of suspected terrorists when one leg of the call is in the U.S. It also disclosed the administration’s SWIFT program for tracking the worldwide financial transactions of terrorists.

In both cases, the disclosures warned terrorists that their communication channels were being intercepted, so they began using other methods, thus undercutting our safety and making another successful 9/11 attack more likely.

In neither case was any abuse — meaning an illegal act for political or otherwise improper purposes — involved. In the case of the phone and e-mail intercepts, Bush disclosed the program at its inception to key members of Congress, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, and the NSA inspector general. Congress has since endorsed the program with legislation.

Calling the leaks “devastating,” Fran Townsend told me, when she was the chief of counterterrorism in the White House, “It’s not just a question of you're putting individuals at risk. The real risk is to the lives of Americans who may suffer an attack because we couldn’t stop it, because the source was taken out.”

Besides its rule on naming subjects of stories, The New York Times withholds people’s names for one other reason: In its June 22 article, the paper said most of the sources for the article could not be named because they were speaking about a highly classified program.

When it helps The New York Times get a story, names are withheld. When it helps our national security, they are not. And when the next attack comes — as it surely will — The New York Times will be the first to blame President Bush. ...