New York Times Publishes Name Of CIA's Drone Strike 'Architect' While Other Media Outlets Pretend This Is Still Some Sort Of Secret

from the 'unnamed'-means-'unaccountable' dept

The New York Times' recent coverage of the fallout from a targeted drone strike that took out two hostages -- one American, along with the suspected terrorist -- contained a detail missing from many other new outlets' coverage of the same incident: Michael D'Andrea.

D'Andrea is the "architect" behind the CIA's targeted strike program. D'Andrea's name had never been previously published by a major news source (although it had been outed elsewhere). The Washington Post -- in its pre-Snowden leak days -- featured a long profile of the chain-smoking Islam convert that included several personally-identifiable details about D'Andrea… but not his name.

Unfortunately, the Post's experience with Snowden didn't affect its stance on the publication of this official's name. Perhaps still too reliant on government assertions that naming D'Andrea would increase the risk of him being targeted by terrorists, the Post left his name out of a more recent article on his reassignment as part of a CIA reorganization.

The Post and the New York Times have both published leaked documents and both have become less willing to oblige obfuscatory requests by government officials over this time period. New York Time's executive editor Dean Baquet explained his paper's decision to publish D'Andrea's name this way:

Baquet said the Times would not reveal names in a gratuitous way, but Sunday's drone story demanded it.

“The whole story was about accountability,” he said. “In a story about accountability, how could you not mention the guys who run the program?”
Accountability is key. As long as journalistic operations continue to allow the government to decide whose names are printed, accountability will remain nothing more than an ideal towards which the government would prefer not to stride. The Post's decision to defer to government officials in its March story about D'Andrea is "explained" by a couple of sentences that could have been copied directly from an (unnamed) official's email.
Because he remains undercover, The Washington Post has agreed to withhold his full name. He has been publicly identified in the past by both his actual first name, Mike, as well as that of his CIA-created identity, Roger.
But leaders of the CIA's counterterrorism programs aren't "undercover" by default. As Gawker points out, previous occupants of D'Andrea's position weren't exactly concerned about exposure "risks."
D'Andrea's predecessor at the counterterrorism center was also treated as an undercover operative, but the position has historically been occupied by real, named senior government officials. The center's founding director was Duane "Dewey" Clarridge, a man who is not afraid of talking to reporters. Cofer Black, who ran the center during and after 9/11, was repeatedly named as such in the Post and trades on the experience to market himself as a paid speaker. Robert Grenier, who has also been named by the Post, highlighted the gig on the cover of his book.
D'Andrea wasn't (and isn't) an operative working in CIA field operations. He's an official (or was until recently) with the power to order drone strikes on foreign soil without even needing to verify the identities of those he's sentencing to death. That's too much power to hand over to someone who can't be held accountable -- not even in the most minimal fashion -- by the American public. These strikes have resulted in the death of several civilians, at least in part because D'Andrea sought -- and obtained -- permission to bypass the supposed "rules" of targeted drone strikes. When something goes wrong -- and it will -- there needs to be someone at the top of the line, known to the public, who should answer for it.

Even though the name is public knowledge (and has actually been so for a few years now), other members of the press are still acting as though it's possible to keep his identity a secret by simply refusing to do what the New York Times did.
When Times reporter Matt Apuzzo, who co-wrote the CIA drone story, appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” co-host Mika Brzezinski signaled at the start that the segment wouldn’t veer into the agents’ identities.

“There’s a couple of different angles on this story,” Brzezinski said. "We’re going to not name names here.”
By doing this, these outlets are no better than the government they're protecting. Our intelligence agencies and various law enforcement counterparts still believe there's a way to retroactively apply secrecy to information already in the public domain. MSNBC's refusal to name names is no different than the DOJ claiming that documents it wants to keep secret are still secret simply because the order to hand them over to the public didn't originate from the DOJ itself.

Far too many articles on highly-controversial subjects contain quotes attributed only to "unnamed officials." The New York Times does this just as often as any other outlet, but at least it has shown it won't continue to obfuscate this detail about the CIA's drone strike program. Of course, the "damage" to D'Andrea is somewhat mitigated by his recent reassignment to elsewhere within the CIA, but it does at least allow the public to put a name to the faceless killings.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    cypherspace (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 4:21am

    While we're talking drones, a recent AP poll has found that a majority of Americans support the program. But as with any poll, the phrasing of the question affects the outcome:
    Kreps examined poll data and found that if respondents are confronted with evidence of errors and civilian casualties in some drone strikes, support for the strikes drops below a majority

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 4:21am

    “The whole story was about accountability,” he said. “In a story about accountability, how could you not mention the guys who run the program?”

    Give him a Pulitzer please. Along with these lines, how can you do real journalism if you keep bowing down to the Government and sucking everything they feed you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 4:52am

    There are supposed to be assessments of military ops for flagrant human rights abuses. They are supposed to be referred to a war crimes tribunal or another legal structure for appropriate peosecution. Outing the names of people to terrorists abroad is and should be criminal. The US is still at war and it is because terrorists strike us in our homeland.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 7:55am

      Re:

      The US is still at war and it is because terrorists strike us in our homeland.

      The US is always at war. Its actions have created and enabled its future adversaries. Iran continues to suffer for the US installing the shah. Iraq continues to suffer from your support of Saddam Hussein. The mess of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, al Quaida, and ISIS are of US making.

      Your wounds are self-inflicted. Stop digging.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 10:31am

        Thoughout the cold war the US was specifically never at war.

        Even when we were drafting people to go to Vietnam and with the threat of nuclear winter, we still recognized that things weren't severe enough to consider wartime desperation measures.

        And now we've always been at war with Eastasia.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 3:33pm

          Thoughout the cold war the US was ALWAYS at war!

          Throughout the cold war the US was specifically never at war.

          I fixed your Subject: line. The human race has got to get over this tendency to sanitize speech and beliefs. Lawyers, Politicians, and states don't get to define reality. It's quite capable of doing that all by itself.

          Were individual human beings dieing at the hands of adversarial military forces? That question applies to any conflict you can imagine involving state or privately driven military forces. For me, I first think of Korea. Diplomats called it a Police Action, I believe. Bovine excrement.

          I don't give a flying !#$ what politicians and diplomats say war is when those individual human beings testify to the existence of war. We owe them to spread this truth.

          They'll never be hear again.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 6 May 2015 @ 5:34pm

            You misunderstood.

            No, we engaged in plenty of military action during the cold war, but we weren't in a state of war.

            There are things that the government can do with legitimacy in a state of war that cannot be done when we are officially in a state of peace.

            It's kind of like our many current states of emergency that give the administration emergency powers to arbitrarily kill people.

            During the cold war we were trying to play by better rules than we do now.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 5 May 2015 @ 8:06am

      Re:

      "The US is still at war and it is because terrorists strike us in our homeland."

      No, it is because the US is addicted to being at war and is hoping that it found a way to sell perpetual war to US citizens.

      "The terrorists" have done nothing that makes being on a war footing a sensical response.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 5:09am

    Truth is criminal now?

    Outing the names of people to terrorists abroad is and should be criminal.

    Based on what, exactly? Anyone working for the United States is a public servant and is publicly accountable to the American people for everything they do in their official capacity. We have every right to know ALL their names.

    The bogus, self-serving argument that disclosure of their names might expose them to danger is ridiculous. All kinds of people are exposed to all kinds of danger every day: that's the risk one takes when one chooses to pursue a particular occupation or position. Yes, terrorists might decide to target someone and they might kill them -- so what? These people volunteered for that risk. They took a chance, and sometimes that chance will turn out badly.

    The American people must have accountability, and if the price for that is a few more deaths, so be it. We've sent far more than that to their deaths for far less.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    avideogameplayer, 5 May 2015 @ 6:26am

    There's no such thing as a free press anymore when your business model involves asking the the government 'permission' to put out any stories that make it look bad...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2015 @ 6:44am

    Who's next in line?

    Since you mention D'Andrea has been reassigned, I suppose someone else is now calling the shots (pun intended).

    Who's that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.