Posted on 08/07/2004 12:07:47 PM PDT by be-baw
LONDON (Reuters) - The revelation that a mole within al Qaeda was exposed after Washington launched its "orange alert" this month has shocked security experts, who say the outing of the source may have set back the war on terror.
Reuters learned from Pakistani intelligence sources on Friday that computer expert Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, arrested secretly in July, was working under cover to help the authorities track down al Qaeda militants in Britain and the United States when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.
"After his capture he admitted being an al Qaeda 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."
Last Sunday, U.S. officials told reporters that someone held secretly by Pakistan was the source of the bulk of the information justifying the alert. The New York Times obtained Khan's name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning.
None of those reports mentioned at the time that Khan had been under cover helping the authorities catch al Qaeda suspects, and that his value in that regard was destroyed by making his name public.
A day later, Britain hastily rounded up terrorism suspects, some of whom are believed to have been in contact with Khan while he was under cover. Washington has portrayed those arrests as a major success, saying one of the suspects, named Abu Musa al-Hindi or Abu Eissa al-Hindi, was a senior al Qaeda figure.
But British police have acknowledged the raids were carried out in a rush. Suspects were dragged out of shops in daylight and caught in a high speed car chase, instead of the usual procedure of catching them at home in the early morning while they can offer less resistance.
"HOLY GRAIL" OF INTELLIGENCE
Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.
"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?
"It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"
A source such as Khan -- cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents -- would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.
"Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."
Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, said allowing Khan's name to become public was "very unclever."
"If it is correct, then I would say its another debacle of the American intelligence community. Maybe other serious sources could have been detected or guys could have been captured in the future" if Khan's identity had been protected, he said.
Britain, which has dealt with Irish bombing campaigns for decades, has a policy of announcing security alerts only under narrow circumstances, when authorities have specific advice they can give the public to take action that will make them safer.
UNNECESSARY ALARM
Home Secretary David Blunkett, responsible for Britain's anti-terrorism policy, said in a statement on Friday there was "a difference between alerting the public to a specific threat and alarming people unnecessarily by passing on information indiscriminately."
Kevin Rosser, security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said an inherent risk in public alerts is that secret sources will be compromised.
"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.
In the case of last week's U.S. alerts, officials said they had ordered tighter security on a number of financial sites in New York, Washington and New Jersey because Khan possessed reports showing al Qaeda agents had studied the buildings.
Although the casing reports were mostly several years old, U.S. officials said they acted urgently because of separate intelligence suggesting an increased likelihood of attacks in the runup to the presidential election in November.
U.S. officials now say Hindi, one of the suspects arrested after Khan's name was compromised, may have been the head of the team that cased those buildings.
But the Pakistani disclosure that Khan was under cover suggests that the cell had been infiltrated, and was under surveillance at the time Washington ordered the orange alert.
The security experts said that under such circumstances it would be extraordinary to issue a public warning, because of the risk of tipping off the cell that it had been compromised. (Additional reporting by Mark Trevelyan in Berlin)
"This is a bogus story."
I agree, but the MSM will still run with it. Loftus usually appears on FNC on Sunday mornings with Eric Shaun...I will try to watch.
Evan Kohlman, terrorism expert, just confirmed on Fox that there are a lot of leaks within Pakistani intelligence. He and Bill Cowan were discussing the pros and cons of the mole being exposed.
"I called FOX, yesterday after Jim Angle made his bogus statement regarding the Elliot retraction."
Aha! So it was you. I noticed that it had been corrected on the late edition.
Thanks! Will do.
If you make the call, have the original article in front of you and read the paragraph that states that the source was Pakistani. I read from the Elliott affadavit, where it was filed, the state and county, etc. and added that Krainish was a paid operative of the Kerry campaign and was making a fool of the news commentators.
"Last Sunday, U.S. officials told reporters that someone held secretly by Pakistan was the source of the bulk of the information justifying the alert. The New York Times obtained Khan's name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning."
No news report yet has identified the "LEAK" coming from any part of the Bush Administration. Words used thus far on the initial "LEAK" have been "U.S. officials" and intelligence officials and this would include any elected Congress critter.
Thus far the first responder to the announcement of raising the alert was Howie Dean, of the JFKerry campaign, and he claimed the "alert" was a political act.
Now seems as though Howei Dean was a decoy to send the "media whores" sniffing out every one they could find with the question whether it was a political move.
All the while the NYTimes is leaking "INTEL" that requires a yes or no response and the Bush Administration cannot allowed themselves to be accused of "LYING" or covering up.
Looks like these dims and the NYTimes are still giving comfort and "INTEL" to the terrorists.
When we calm down and read the articles, they note that a Pakky intel officer was the one who did the original outing.
QUESTION: Were the recent arrests in Pakistan a key contributing factor to the information flow that you're getting now?
RIDGE: Well, we will not comment on the specific sources, but let me just go back again and say the coalition that we have built, and the alliances we have built, have been instrumental and very much a part of our intelligence-gathering operation.
It was a media folk which asked him the damn question, and he responded about as ambiguously as humanly possible. Ridge DID NOT point out anything. The only dots being laid out were by the media, friend...
It's my observation that Jane's has gone over to the dark side. They do a lot of criticizing of this administration. Sometimes subtle sometimes quite overt.
But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy, so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home.
We should assume the NYT will commit treason if given the opportunity and we can't control what officials in foreign governments leak, but our government should be more careful about giving too much information to our enemies. It wasn't just the NYT that quickly picked up on Ridge's mention of intel from Pakistan, it was the entire worldwide press. Yes we may not have had Kahn's name until the NYT put it in print on Tuesday, but the terrorists already knew his name. By naming the specific targets and pointing to Pakistan, they could have concluded that somebody in Pakistan, i.e. Kahn, had been compromised. My point is this mole's cover may have been blown prior to his name being printed in the NYT.
The left will always be more outraged over Joe Wilson's wife.
Thanks for your good info, Eva!
The 'Inside Scoop with John Loftus' is on Fox between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on Sundays.
Eric Shawn is ususally thorough in interviews. I sent him the relevant links with my comments.
You're exactly correct.
I would also add that the initial story on this guy was that they "caught" him in July and it took at least two weeks to break the code.
If this guy really was a mole, this may have been a cover story.
I would submit, however, that another reason he may have been "announced" and the reason for the threat announcement was the new information that the cell was about to swing into action.
These specific buildings were able to increase their surveillance and security.
Al-Qaeda does not like to improvise.
I don't have a TV, but would appreciate it if someone would give me a concise summary re Loftus.
Most of the discussion was about the new explosions near a school in Karachi.
Loftus seems to have backed off his 'White House outed' comment A BIT. He said Khan was a great Pakistani intel coup. He said the New York Times outed Khan Monday. He said the NY Times and MAYBE the White House released the information too early. Shawn and Loftus concluded the interview with agreement that the U.S. and Pakistan needed each other in the WOT.
IMO, Loftus was still trying to link the loss of a mole in Al Queda to the White House, but there was no time to follow up on that aspect of the discussion.....even if Shawn had been so inclined.
WHomever at the new york slimes made the decision to publically name the "mole" should be taken out and shot. That is an act of treason, imho...
You're welcome!
And wasn't that the NYT's plan all along?
I personally look forward to hearing of al Qaeda suspects offering resistance to arrest...
Save us a lot of money in legal fees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.