Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a U.S. Security Blunder

Reuters ^ | 7 Aug 2004 | Peter Graff

[bin2baghdad]

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. ... The

New York Times

obtained Khan's name independently ....

[bin2baghdad]

NY Times outs a REAL undercover intelligence asset - not merely a desk-bound paper pusher like Valerie Pflame.

[I know this appeared yesterday, but my search didn't turn it up here.]

[Steven W.]

the real culprits are the sleazy Michael Moore-on types who claimed the terrorist alerts are all political and, for that matter, John Kerry, who not only witheld any real condemnation of his spokesman Howard Dean's comments earlier last week, has actually questioned "whether the war on terrorism is really a war at all"

[Reactionary]

Let's have an investigation to see which liberal scumbag leaked *this* information, shall we?

No? You mean the Beltway scumbags aren't interested?

[secretagent]

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.

If the US had stayed mum, the NY Times would have had no story.

Who in the Fed-Gov confirmed the guy's name?

[Mr. Buzzcut]

This news story is frustrating in its incompleteness ...

[Tacis]

This is why it is so important that no one on this secure siye mention ANYTHING about all the Reuters reporters in the middle-east who are on the Mossad payroll and report secretly a lot of what they don't actually print to Tel Aviv.

[Constitution1st]

The Fed-Gov is full of clintonites; it could have been many treasonous types.

The nyt has crossed the line from free press into treason too many times, and THIS is serious; the endangered lives are too many to mention, as well as the war on terror.

WILL the justice department NOW do something about that filthy nyt? That is the question.

[gov_bean_ counter]

It is entirely possible that he was outed by the simple fact that the terror alert was elevated.

[secretagent]

It is entirely possible that he was outed by the simple fact that the terror alert was elevated.

Possible that they could have scrambled once the building-specific alert got issued, but if the terrorists had any doubt, the U.S. removed it:

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.

U.S. officials first revealed that Pakistan had nabbed a guy and that this action gave them the info to issue their terror alert on specific buildings. Then the NY times figured out the likely name and the U.S. confirmed it.

[secretagent]

Can the NY Times staff stand accused of treason if U.S. officials started and confirmed the news?

Wouldn't the NY Times reasonably assume that the officials would not release sensitive information?

[ridesthemiles]

I've said it before--Bears Repeating-- "Loose lips sink ships". Just as workable today as 60 years ago.

[bayourod]

Maybe the leak was intentional to let Al Qadeans know that there are spies among them. Remember, a Muslim who changes religions is supposed to be killed. They may not have even thought that a member would sell out to the great satin.

Sowing the seeds of suspician.