Talk:Jose Rodriguez (intelligence officer)

poor writing quality

lines like this:

"As of May 2011, Rodriguez is engaged in writing a book, "Hard Measures" which tells the story of the campaign against Al Qaeda"

sounds like PR fluff. He's engaging? who cares! this bio should really only list things about what he's actually done, not sitting around engaging a book

Overall quality of the article

Bio pages should be written more in the style of encyclopedia articles, not faux-journalism (ie, use of jargon like "chief spy". I'm in the process of clean up, and if anyone wishes to contribute to this Talk please sign your posts! It's real easy: just append ~~~~ at the end of your comment. The name and date/time stamp is done automatically. Thanks. Alcarillo 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In going through this mess, I've been cutting blatantly speculative statements like: military attache used as "funnel for money, arms, and intelligence"; unattributed comments about the possibily of Rodriguez's "friend" may have been a CIA asset. We're not trying to win "indy journalism" awards here, people. Just stick to the facts. Alcarillo 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "indy journalism", I even found the earlier text repurposed here. More to my point about the quality of the article and the agenda of whomever started it.Alcarillo

It's bare-boned at the moment, but I believe most of the information is factual and verifiable. Should anyone wish to expand on the information presented here, please include info relevant to the article (and not rhetoric regarding CIA policy in Latin America, gross speculation and investigative-style reportage) as well as a citation to back it up. Note that I've tagged a couple of items as needing factual support. Others, like this supposed link between Rodriguez's appointment and Kissinger's resignation from the 9/11 Commission, I removed.Alcarillo 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by a single-purpose account (editing this article seems to be their only Wikipedia activity) have degraded the quality of the footnotes. A great deal of copyediting is now needed on the footnotes. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Educational Background

Has anyone been able to find out where Rodriguez was educated, and if so, could they append the entry with such information? I think every good bio-entry has at least a modicum of information on the person's earned degrees and area of study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.98.15 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Several questionable sources have reported he is originally from Puerto Rico. I'm not sure we can verify this - the CIA usually makes it pretty difficult to find biographical info on current and former employees. I'll have a closer look in the near future.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable Sources

In trying to dig up some more biographical data on Rodriguez, I came upon this | jem of an article. It seems like whomever wrote the entry on Rodriguez was taking cues from it. I'll put it in as an external link, but it really shouldn't be used here as a source of information. Alcarillo 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumed D/NCS

I would like to remind you all that because the CIA does not publish the name of the D/NCS, we cannot produce verifiable proof that Rodriguez is still in the post. --RaiderAspect 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia name-dropped in the news today.

Thought it might be of interest to the editors here; Wikipedia users even created an entry about him last year, although the page contains inaccuracies Tarc 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-- That sounds ridiculous. Did anyone else see any errors? I think that they just threw that in there to take up space - they just figured that it sounded plausible because of their own bias against Wikipedia.

69.14.137.34

¡ ¿ ~~ sign

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no signbot ?

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. is the Director of the National Clandestine Service (D/NCS) of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. He was the last to serve as the Agency's Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) before that position was upgraded to D/NCS in December 2004.

I just heard a report which confused me; then, that paragraph confused me further,...

Thanks,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA Torture Tapes scandal

Several news sources yesterday identified Mr. Rodriguez as the CIA administrator who ordered the destruction of video tapes which recorded CIA employees using "aggressive" interrogation methods in 2002. They were allegedly destroyed in November 2005. Their existence and destruction was acknowledged by Director Michael Hayden. The subjects of the interrogations are allegedly members of al-Qaida, one of who has been identified as Abu Zubaydah. The destruction of these tapes could constitute obstruction of justice, since the CIA was ordered by the 9/11 Commission and a Federal judge in the Moussaoui case to release such media for evidence. [[1]]

An entry should be added to the article in the next day or two based on these developments.Happysomeone (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This chapter in Mr. Rodriguez's career looks set to develop further in the public sphere & is clogging up the introduction. I'll be moving this down into the body of the article under a subheader "The CIA Torture Tapes scandal". Seems a bit POV, though. Anyone got a better idea? --Happysomeone (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So he was under prosecution for three years by Attorney Generals Mukasey and Holder?

I know at the time the tapes were destroyed, the Attorney General was Alberto Gonzales, who had a big role signing off on EITs/torture, who did not prosecute him by any means at all. At the time he came to testify for destroying the videotapes in early 2008 (that's almost three years before being exonerated), the Attorney General was Michael Mukasey. He was exonerated in November 2010 by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder. Is this right? If we're going to talk about the Justice Department, we need specifics. J390 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over destruction of interrogation videotapes

The two accounts of why Rodriguez destroyed the tapes are not in tension, in fact they are in perfect accord: both say that Rodriquez knew what was shown on those tapes would "nail" the CIA personnel involved. He intended to protect his people and the agency by destroying them. Protect against what? Unfair prosecution would say one side. Obstructing justice would say the other. Take your pick. The last two sentences attempt to spin a pov about the persons quoted. As they used to say on Dragnet, "Just the facts, ma'm." ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Elijah, I understand what you are saying, but see that these are in fact two different points of view. In one, the primary concern is that tapes (as documents by the CIA Inspector General and reported by the NYT) were made to document the detainee's health, complaince with techniques, and to aid analysis. Rodriguez is concerned that the people involved in performing the interrogations had their pictures in the video. If these pictures come out, it makes these specific individuals a target for Al Qaeda. Foggo's view is that it was about protecting the CIA's reputation, not the individual people. These are different things. Both are concerned with protecting. One is protecting employees tasked to do a specific mission that is controversial and covert. The other, all about protecting the Agency itself. I do not know which is true. What I know is that A) they are different, and B) Foggo is an character with SUBSTANTIAL issues around corruption, fraud, and honesty. I simply believe the fair biographical characterization is to note that. SIMILARLY, I would argue it would be fair to note that subsequently it has been revealed that Porter Goss did in fact approve the destruction of the tapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.119.50 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Career after CIA

The assertion that information derived from waterboarding was useful is hotly disputed. And there is no indication Rodriguez personally administered the waterboarding. If one piece of information derived from waterboarding that happened on his watch (which specific waterboarding--the first or the third or the 182nd?) led to developing further information, that eventually years afterwards, when added to yet more information from other sources, might have helped eventually suggest a place where Bin Laden might be found--that does not give Rodriguez reason to claim credit. If indeed "credit" is what is to be claimed for what a large number of people consider a war crime, primarily of service to our enemies in boosting suicide bomber recruitment, and a permanent stain on our flag; an enduring disgrace to our country. One might better credit the nameless factory worker at some Colt armory who crimped the copper jacket around the bullet that killed Osama Bin Laden. One should actually credit President Obama and Seal Team 6. But Rodriquez? Whoever is adding the stilted opinion that Rodriguez found Bin Laden needs to go re-read what an encyclopedia is for. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Elijah, COMPLETELY agree that this is hotly disputed and suspect it will be for quite some time. The sentences you find objectionable are not at all asserting that Rodruguez performed any of the enhanced interrogation techniques (of which waterboarding is simply the most visible and reported). Rather, he was the Deputy of the CTC and then Director of the CTC through this crucial period. In that respect, he was the Agency lead for orchestrating the campaign against Al Qaeda. The citiations about his in-progress book mention both this role (orchestrating the campaign) and his opinion on enhanced interrogation techniques. The claims are his, not mine. It is his book being written and reported about. We may disagree on elements or interpretations. I see the point of the biography as sharing what he is doing and what he believes. Then views that may run counter. With respect to "credit," I did not read at all that he is claiming credit for UBL. For anyone reasonable person, that "credit" obviously has to be spread across a broad range of people and organizations. What I read him (and Gen Hayden) saying is not to look past the interrgoations of the two key leaders in 2002-2004. These produced key leads that others took up in the pursuit.

Personally, I believe that the President, CIA, JSOC, SEALs, and a number of others deserve huge credit, as they are rightfully getting. You only need to read Coll's, Ghost War's to gain a glimpse into the challenge of making the decision to go--just focusing on the President's role. That is separate from identifying the contribution of interrogations in generating important or critical leads. To acknowledge the one, you need not disclaim the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.119.50 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jose Rodriguez (intelligence officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110506221906/http://blogs.reuters.com:80/frontrow/2011/05/05/former-cia-clandestine-chief-in-memoir-to-explain-why-interrogation-videos-destroyed/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/05/05/former-cia-clandestine-chief-in-memoir-to-explain-why-interrogation-videos-destroyed/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110508014305/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/time/httpswamplandtimecom20110504didtorturegettheusosamabinladenxidrssfullnationyahoo to http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/httpswamplandtimecom20110504didtorturegettheusosamabinladenxidrssfullnationyahoo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)