• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

U.S. blew undercover operation on Al -Qaida

Status
Not open for further replies.

vangace

Member
Seriously this has reached a point were it looks the whole US intelligence is being run by a 10 year kid. They need to fire all those incompetent bastards




ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week’s terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location.
Under pressure to justify the alerts in three Northeastern cities, U.S. officials confirmed a report by The New York Times that the man, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was the source of the intelligence that led to the decision.
A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters on Friday that Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.
Monday evening, after Khan’s name appeared, Pakistani officials moved him to a secret location.
“After his capture [in July], he admitted being an al-Qaida member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts,” a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. “He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He’s a great hacker, and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz.”
The Times published a story Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts. The Times identified him as Khan, although it did not say how it had learned his name.
U.S. officials subsequently confirmed the name to other news organizations Monday morning. None of the reports mentioned that Khan was working under cover at the time, helping to catch al-Qaida suspects.
British swoop
In addition to ending the Pakistani sting, the premature disclosure of Khan’s identity may have affected a major British operation in which 12 suspects were arrested in raids this week, one of whom U.S. officials said was a senior al-Qaida figure. One of the men was released Friday.
British police told Reuters on Friday that they had been forced to carry out the raids more hastily than planned, a day after Khan’s name appeared in the Times.
Such raids are usually carried out late at night or in the early morning, when suspects might be at home and less likely to resist. But showing clear signs of haste, British police pounced in daylight. Some suspects were taken in shops; others were caught in a high-speed car chase.
A British anti-terrorism police source would not comment on the reason for their quick action, but he confirmed the raids were carried out faster than planned: “It would be a fair assessment to say there was an urgency. Something can happen that prompts us to take action faster than we would,” he told Reuters.
U.S. officials told NBC News this week that one of the 12 British detainees, known as Abu Eisa al-Hindi, was a key al-Qaida operative in Britain.

‘Genius student’
Britain’s Press Association, quoting his father and one of his professors, described Khan as an unusually gifted computer expert in his mid-20s from Karachi, Pakistan.

The PA said Khan, who was arrested in Lahore on July 13, led authorities to another major al-Qaida figure, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian with a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than 200 people.

Zafar Qasim, a computer science professor at Nadir Eduljee Dinshaw Engineering University, where Khan graduated in 2001, told the PA that Khan was a “genius student” who finished near the top of his class. He said Khan never appeared interested in any militant activity and never missed a class.

A senior intelligence official said Khan's wife was the sister of a “top ranking” leader of the Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan. The official said Khan had been to Britain four times, always on reduced-price tickets he got through his father, a flight attendant with Pakistan International Airlines, the PA reported.

Experts taken by surprise
Intelligence and security experts said they were surprised that Washington would reveal information that could expose the name of a source during an ongoing law enforcement operation.

“If it’s true that the Americans have unintentionally revealed the identity of another nation’s intelligence agent, who appears to be working in the good of all of us, that is not only a fundamental intelligence flaw. It’s also a monumental foreign relations blunder,” security expert Paul Beaver, a former publisher of Jane’s Defense Weekly, told Reuters.

Kevin Rosser, a security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said such a disclosure was a risk that came with staging public alerts but that authorities were supposed to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations.

“When these public announcements are made, they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue, you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations,” he said.

MSNBC.com’s Alex Johnson and Reuters contributed to this report.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
holy fuck.

heads need to roll on this one. This guy obviously is getting us a TON of information we would not otherwise have and we just outed him.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Revealing the identities of our own intelligence agents, revealing the identities of agents from other countries.

Where will it end? It's like Maxwell Smart is running things down there.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
xsarien said:
Where will it end? It's like Maxwell Smart is running things down there.
Things always worked out in the end when he was involved. I'm not sure the same can be said here.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
Well, it doesn't sound like this guy is an actual agent. He's kind of like Adriana from the Sopranos.

Still, that's just fucked up. I thought they called this business "intelligence" for a reason. :(
 

Meier

Member
Shouldn't people be more angered with the NYT? When will the newspapers learn that some things need not be reported? How does including his name change the story? Why not just say an unidentified informant?
 

NLB2

Banned
yeah, seriously. Don't blame the CIA or whomever the informant worked for. Once the NYT reported his name he was as good as worthless to theCIA.
 
Sure, blame NYT. How did they get that information? It was leaked and it's just as much the Intelligence community's fault for not watching for possible leaks.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
The Shadow said:
Sure, blame NYT. How did they get that information? It was leaked and it's just as much the Intelligence community's fault for not watching for possible leaks.
Exactly. Sure the guys at NYT are fucktards for publishing it, but the information didn't come out of thin air.
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Thats how desperate for leads they are. The fact that people have blind faith in the US gvt and intelligence is what scares me.

OH, and whats about this chatter thing? Its bad when it increases and its bad when it decreases? And howcome they can never get anything even remotely specific from all this chatter?
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
The NYTimes would look worse if it weren't for the fact that once other news agencies picked up the story, the government decided to confirm the name instead of realizing their error and trying to bury his identity from as many front pages as possible.

The NY Times should've known better, the government fucked up by not realizing what they were divulging.
 

fart

Savant
the media has no obligation to bury his name. the intelligence agencies have that obligation.

the administration actively spread that story as a PR effort. fucking disgusting.
 

Meier

Member
fart said:
the media has no obligation to bury his name.

That's just it -- sometimes THEY DO. The news media has such a hard-on for getting something out first and selling more copies that they often never think of the consequences of it. Some things simply DONT need to be said when it is in the best interest of the WORLD.
 

Socreges

Banned
FYI, you don't have to take a shot in the arm as an American for feeling that the government should also be considered responsible.

Was this the intelligence that ended up being a few years old?
 

Ripclawe

Banned
the media's obligation is to report facts.

The media also has to protect sources and they do, this is the fault of the officials and the Nytimes letting this guy's name into print.

Was this the intelligence that ended up being a few years old?

and updated recently, the intelligence has been backed up as more information has been found out.
 

fart

Savant
you're so stupid rip. journalists have a right to protect their own sources. that situation doesn't apply here at all.
 
http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109185597245383648

Did the Bush Administration Burn a Key al-Qaeda Double Agent?

Simon Cameron-Moore and Peter Graff of Reuters reveal the explosive information that the Bush administration blew the cover Monday of double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. On Sunday August 1, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced a new alert against an al-Qaeda plot concerning fincial institutions in New York and Washington, DC.

Pressed for details by the New York Times, some Bush administration official revealed that the information came from a recently arrested man in Pakistan named "Khan." The New York Times published his name on Monday.

Reuters alleges,
"The New York Times published a story on Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts. The newspaper named him as Khan, although it did not say how it had learned his name. U.S. officials subsequently confirmed the name to other news organizations on Monday morning. None of the reports mentioned that Khan was working under cover at the time, helping to catch al Qaeda suspects."


I don't have access to a hard copy of last Monday's NYT anymore, and so cannot check. The article as it appears in Lexis Nexis, from the "late edition" on Monday, already has Khan's full name.

Douglas Jehl and David Rohde wrote in the article published Monday, Aug. 2, "The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials. The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages." Reuters seems to say that the first, early morning edition of the article just identified the figure as "Khan."

Reuters implies that once the Americans blew Khan's cover, the Pakistani ISI were willing to give Rohde more details in Karachi.

This part of the Reuters chronology seems not quite right to me, unless the early-edition Jehl/Rohde story on Monday only gave "Khan" and not the full name.

Anyway, Khan had been secretly apprehended by Pakistani military intelligence in mid-July, and had been turned into a double agent. He was actively helping investigators penetrate further into al-Qaeda cells and activities via computer, and was still cooperating when the "senior Bush administration" figure told Jehl about him.

Pakistani military intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence) told Reuters,

' "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz . . . He was cooperating with interrogators on Sunday and Monday and sent e-mails on both days . . ."


In other words, the Bush administration just blew the cover of one of the most important assets inside al-Qaeda that the US has ever had.

The announcement of Khan's name forced the British to arrest 12 members of an al-Qaeda cell prematurely, before they had finished gathering the necessary evidence against them via Khan. Apparently they feared that the cell members would scatter as soon as they saw that Khan had been compromised. (They would have known he was a double agent, since they got emails from him Sunday and Monday!) One of the twelve has already had to be released for lack of evidence, a further fall-out of the Bush SNAFU. It would be interesting to know if other cell members managed to flee.

Why in the world would Bush administration officials out a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against al-Qaeda? In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is true, this slip is a major screw-up that casts the gravest doubts on the competency of the administration to fight a war on terror. Either the motive was political calculation, or it was sheer stupidity. They don't deserve to be in power either way.

Reuters quotes British security expert Kevin Rosser speculating what might have been the political calculation if that was the motivation. He
' said such a disclosure was a risk that came with staging public alerts, but that authorities were meant to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations. "When these public announcements are made they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said. '


So one scenario goes like this. Bush gets the reports that Eisa al-Hindi had been casing the financial institutions, and there was an update as recently as January 2004 in the al-Qaeda file. So this could be a live operation. If Bush doesn't announce it, and al-Qaeda did strike the institutions, then the fact that he knew of the plot beforehand would sink him if it came out (and it would) before the election. So he has to announce the plot. But if he announces it, people are going to suspect that he is wagging the dog and trying to shore up his popularity by playing the terrorism card. So he has to be able to give a credible account of how he got the information. So when the press is skeptical and critical, he decides to give up Khan so as to strengthen his case. In this scenario, he or someone in his immediate circle decides that a mere double agent inside al-Qaeda can be sacrificed if it helps Bush get reelected in the short term.

On the other hand, sheer stupidity cannot be underestimated as an explanatory device in Washington politics.


posted by Juan @ 8/7/2004 09:07:37 AM
 

Makura

Member
Maybe if people would stop crying political crocodile tears for justification everytime the government does it's job, things like this wouldn't happen.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
Meier said:
That's just it -- sometimes THEY DO. The news media has such a hard-on for getting something out first and selling more copies that they often never think of the consequences of it. Some things simply DONT need to be said when it is in the best interest of the WORLD.

But who gets to make that decision? That's called censorship. It's not like the NYT broke into CIA headquarters to get his name. They probably just did some fact checking and calling around. It's ultimately the job of the intelligence agency to bury this guy's identity. The NYT and all other papers can't get this info if it's not out there. And if he's supposed to be undercover, then that means nobody should find out.
 

Deg

Banned
Meier said:
Shouldn't people be more angered with the NYT? When will the newspapers learn that some things need not be reported? How does including his name change the story? Why not just say an unidentified informant?


Why blame the media here? Some of you amaze me.

The info was handed out to the media. It SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOT OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE to anyone including the media let alone many of these government types.

I'm not the one to take much interest in this kind of stuff but the way this whole terror thing is being played by the US govt. is extremely pathetic.

Then again they've been idiots ayway getting away with stuff like the coloured alerts.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Remember when the white house leaked the name of a CIA agent to punish somebody? I suppose the media was primarily at blame there too. Not saying they aren't without any blame, but usually when you hand stuff to the media they have a nasty habit of printing it.
 

FightyF

Banned
Remember when the white house leaked the name of a CIA agent to punish somebody? I suppose the media was primarily at blame there too. Not saying they aren't without any blame, but usually when you hand stuff to the media they have a nasty habit of printing it.

That's 100% true.

But do consider that during the Gulf War, and the last 2 recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, censorship of the media was utilized to it's full potential by the Pentagon.

Also consider that the excuse used by the Bush Administration whenever they want to sidestep any question is "we can't give that information because it would comprimise National Security". That same answer could have been applied to this situation, but my guess is that they were really giddy and wanted to share this info to show the American people that they were actually doing something and accomplished something in this war on terror.
 
Malakhov said:
The thread's title should be:

New York Times blew undercover operation on Al-Qaida.



So the media should bear the brunt of being being the fucktards that let the intellegence slip? Lets not fault the government agencies that are in charge of keeping this stuff under wraps. If the are the fucking CIA then they should act like it and keep the shit secret. Hell, they been able to hide Bush's whereabouts during Nam better than the stuff coming out now.
 

Phoenix

Member
Its all up to the individual news outlets. But it really doesn't matter - if a news outlet learned of this information, you can pretty much consider it 'low latency' public domain - such that anyone who wants to get at that information can get at it.

Some news outlets don't show anything that would endanger troops on the ground regardless of how factual it is or not (CNN) because that would be really irresponsible. Some feel that it is their duty to show whatever information they receive (FOX). There are pros and cons to both sides of the coin.

Most news outlets have fairly good relationships with government agencies so more than likely when the information was uncovered it was reported to that government agency. Sometimes news outlets are asked to sit on information for a period of time after they've discovered something so that the government(s) involved can get people out of harms way (just let us get our agents out - we need 5 days). And, and don't forget this one, sometimes news stories are manufactured by government agencies to serve and end. Counterintelligence is just as important as intelligence.
 
From what I heard, the government didn't give anybody the name of Khan but they described him and his activities to a point where everybody knew who he was anyway. And Condi tried to defend leaking this info today........silly ho
 

hooo

boooy
fart said:
the media has no obligation to bury his name. the intelligence agencies have that obligation.

What obligation/responsiblity should the media have? As of now they don't seem to care to have any.
 

Fusebox

Banned
Fight for Freefrom you sound a like a 10 year old conspiracy theorist dude, every single one of your posts is 'stick it to da Bush' whether it has anything to so with him or not.

A newspaper released Khans name.

"U.S. officials" who apparently have no department name worth reporting confirmed it.

But you keep going off, stick it to the man dude.
 

FightyF

Banned
Yeah, my wording wasn't entirely correct. I blame the Bush Administration for making this mistake.

Namely, the mistake of disclosing and confirming this information by U.S. government officials.

Where is this conspiracy theory you speak of?
 

Shinobi

Member
Socreges said:
Wow, talk about incriminating. However, perhaps Reuters has a book coming out.

lol.gif


I've never had any love for the media, and think most of the bastards in that business would dime out their own mothers if it meant getting a front page exclusive. But blaming the media for this name getting out is beyond stupid. The fact that this name got out at all is a ridiculous, unforgivable breach of the highest order, and should frighten the fuck out of anyone with a brain. Once the name is able to move itself from intelligence circles into any segment of the press, the operation is fucked. And if you don't think al Qaeda knew what the deal was before this story became widespread, you're dumber then the idiots who blew this operation.



Fight for Freeform said:
Also consider that the excuse used by the Bush Administration whenever they want to sidestep any question is "we can't give that information because it would comprimise National Security". That same answer could have been applied to this situation, but my guess is that they were really giddy and wanted to share this info to show the American people that they were actually doing something and accomplished something in this war on terror.

Ain't that the truth...you would think information on a fucking double agent would qualify, yet somehow it gets out here? It's just a joke.
 

Meier

Member
A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, was subpoenaed Thursday by a Washington grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a CIA undercover officer to the syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.... MORE...

From the Drudge Report.
 

Drensch

Member
And....
Drudge's report is in regards to Rove's attack on Plame. Tim Russert, and a shitload of other journos have already testified or refused. Novak was the only one that was a big enough piece of shit to take Rove's story and run. It's common knowledge that Rove called a bunch of people trying get revenge on Joe Wilson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom