Replies

In explaining the decision to call a new terror alert, American officials would say only that the evidence obtained by the C.I.A. after the arrest of the Qaeda figure in Pakistan had provided a richer, more credible source of intelligence than could have been provided by any single individual. They declined to say whether the "documentary evidence" included physical documents or might also include electronic information stored on computers, like copies of e-mail communications.

Sounds like a bit of a mother lode - good cache!

It's stupid to make this even public and let al Qaeda know we have him. Kinda makes you wonder if these idiots would have told the Japanese we'd broken their code prior to Midway. Instead, they should have remained silent and used the guy to maneuver the terrorists into situations where they could have been apprehended before committing their acts.

Imagine this scenario: We take the guy down and break their code along with it. Keeping him in place, we get a heads up on what's being planned. We delay the transmission of orders by say a couple of hours while we pass it along to our guys. We get names, dates, and places of where to pick these guys up. We spring the trap and scoop them up. When releasing details of the ops to the press, specify that we got our info from one of the guys we picked up. We begin the process of undermining al Qaeda from within by making them question just how loyal their operatives are. They'll be more worried about their own skin than they are the cause. Sooner or later one of them will rat out the top guys to save their own ass.