
The
 Guardian's readers' editor Chris Elliott  explains in his 
Open Door column today why the paper took the decision 
to name Raymond Davis, the American who allegedly shot dead two men in Lahore, triggering a diplomatic crisis between 
Pakistan and the US, as a CIA agent.
Pakistani authorities charged Davis with murder, but the Obama  administration has insisted he is an "administrative and technical  official" attached to its Lahore consulate and has diplomatic immunity.
The 
Guardian went ahead and published despite being urged not to by the CIA amd MI5.
Elliott says until the 
Guardian named Davis as a CIA employee on 21 February, newspapers and news agencies in the US were reluctant to do so because they had been asked by the agency and government to keep it under wraps  because his life might be at risk if his job was divulged.
He writes: "It is  one of the most powerful ethical questions a newspaper has to face:  whether to publish information that may endanger a life."
Elliott adds: "Davis's CIA link wasn't actually a very big secret in Pakistan. For days  newspapers had been describing him as a spy; by Sunday morning, 20  February, the headline in one of Pakistan's national newspapers, The Nation, was "Raymond Davis linked to CIA".'
According to Elliott, "A CIA spokesman made strenuous efforts over the weekend to persuade Ian  Katz, the Guardian's deputy editor in charge of news, that identifying  Davis as a CIA agent would be wrong. The agency's case broadly was that  attempts to release Davis were delicate and tying him to the CIA would  only "fan the flames". MI5 also called the Guardian to ask them not to  specifically link Davis to the CIA."
Katz says: "We came to the view that his CIA-ness was a critical part  of the story, bound to be a factor in his trial or in attempts to have  him released. The reasons we were given for not naming him were,  firstly, that it may complicate his release – that is not our job. If he  was held hostage other factors would kick in but he is in the judicial  process. The other reason given by the CIA was that he would come to  harm in prison."
Katz adds the story was about how the  CIA behaved abroad and that all the Guardian's investigative work  suggested that the Pakistanis were taking exceptional care to keep the  agent safe.
Elliott says: "There  is also a faint echo here of the Wallis Simpson story. When the US  divorcee began a relationship with Prince Edward, scandalising the  world, you could read all about it everywhere except in England, where  the press colluded with the establishment to keep it from the people."
He concludes: "It is impossible for newspapers to operate in  any effective way without sometimes having to make decisions that could  lead to physical harm or reputational damage. The role of newspapers is  not to duck them but to apply a set of ethical tests against as much  information as they can find – which I think happened in this case – and  then bear the consequences."
- Elliott also quotes Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger stating: "We were asked by the British government not to run the Yemeni  cables during the WikiLeaks investigation because it would undermine the  fight against Islamists. We refused. Two months later that looks like  the right decision."