N.Y. Times Blows Cover of Key Counterterror Agent

but they did it on background which means it's supposed to be treated as off the record.

That's not what background means. Information given "on background" is expected to be made public without the source being explicitly named. Giving information on background is typically how administrations leak information they want leaked.

Wasn't Howie Dean the "first responder" for the JFKerry campaign, for the elevated alert???

So Howie comes out first and claims this was just a political move, and the news business is a buzzzzz about whether its a political move.

Then there is a day or two buzzz about the "intel" being ancient.

JFKerry gets ask if he thinks it a political move, all the while it take a few days to have the real story unveiled by Brits and the Pak.. that what happened that a name revealed by the Times via a no named U.S. official shuts down an ongoing operation.

Agreed. This was obviously done by a Kerry mole in the CIA intent on crippling the war on terror.

A tempting theory, but it was pretty clear from the Rice interview that this was a sanctioned administration background interview. Someone blew it, big time.

Was Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan married to Joe Wilson?

A tempting theory, but it was pretty clear from the Rice interview that this was a sanctioned administration background interview. Someone blew it, big time.

Read the actual Slimes article. The leak likely came from Pakistani intelligence and may have been confirmed AFTER the Slimes article was printed by U.S. intelligence.

Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The press, for better or for worse, cannot be prosecuted for what they print, regardless of what it is. That's the 1st Amendment.

That doesn't apply when it comes to giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" during wartime. Like tipping off the enemy to giant sting operations. There is no right of freedom of the press to endanger the United States and its inhabitants.

None dare call it treaon, but that is what it is.

Well, I can certainly see how this story would make you frustrated enough to sign up.

CNN
PAULA ZAHN NOW
August 4, 2004 Wednesday

Officials Say Al Qaeda Members May be in U.S

GUESTS: John Gohel
BYLINE: Heidi Collins, Ron Young, Kelli Arena, Dana Bash

HIGHLIGHT:
What important new lead may have triggered America's stepped-up security this week? Officials say al Qaeda suspects contacted someone in the U.S.
(snip)
COLLINS: The threat of a terrorist attack against the U.S. seemed so immediate last Sunday when the alert level went up for financial institutions in three cities. But then we heard that much of the intelligence used to make that decision was three years old.

Today's news might make your sense of whiplash a little bit worse. Two U.S. government sources tell CNN suspected al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan has contacted someone in the U.S. in the past few months.

CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena was the first to report this information. She joins us in Washington tonight now with the details on this.

Good evening, Kelli. Thanks a lot for being here.

What are your U.S. sources telling you now?

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, U.S. officials, senior U.S. officials have told us exactly what you said, Heidi, which is that there is evidence in the intelligence that was gathered in Pakistan that alleged al Qaeda operatives there contacted an individual or individuals here in the United States.

Now, they would not characterize how that contact was made or what information was shared, but obviously, this does lend some credibility to the concern that there are al Qaeda operatives here in the United States that are poised to attack.

COLLINS: Well, of course. How does that information then compare with what authorities in Pakistan are saying?

ARENA: Well, a little different. The Pakistani officials go a little further. This is information that we have not confirmed with U.S. officials, but Pakistani intelligence officials at a very senior level have told CNN that, yes, there was contact made by the alleged al Qaeda computer expert, Muhammad Naeem Noor Kahn -- we've heard a lot about him lately -- that he had allegedly contacted six, what they call al Qaeda operatives here in the United States.

So they go further to define the people that are here as al Qaeda operatives and put a number on it, six. As I said, U.S. officials not confirming that part of the story, but Pakistani officials very definitely saying this is what happened.

COLLINS: But is the U.S. then saying anything about how much cooperation they're actually getting from Pakistan?

ARENA: Well, many law enforcement and government sources have said that the cooperation from Pakistan is getting increasingly better, that there has been a lot of political diplomatic pressure placed on Pakistan.

As you know, there have long been reports that many of the senior al Qaeda operatives are thought to be with -- on the Pakistan-Afghani border, so lots of problems in the tribal areas in Pakistan.

These recent arrests are happening right in the middle of the city, Heidi, so it does seem that the Pakistanis have upped the ante a bit, have gotten more aggressive. And across the board, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well, they're saying that this -- this intelligence gathering process going on in Pakistan is really proving to be very beneficial.

COLLINS: Well, it's happening right in the middle of these new terror alerts as well. So how much does this new information actually play into the recent warnings?

ARENA: Well, we're told -- and this is where it gets tricky -- we're told that it was a major factor.

(Reading between the lines here: Were the "intelligence gathering" and recent arrests a "major factor" because Kahn's name was leaked? The Pakistanis had to move quickly to make the arrests?)

We also heard today from Bush administration officials that it was not only the information in Pakistan that we all heard about, which was a surveillance of these buildings here in the United States that was done in such great detail, but that there was also another stream of intelligence coming in from human sources overseas also indicating that financial targets were being up by al Qaeda.

So you had so many different sources of intelligence coming in, but I am told that this alleged communication was high on the list of concerns.

COLLINS: So because of these concerns now, do you know whether or not the government is actually considering raising the alert level across the board all across the country?

ARENA: We haven't heard that, Heidi, and I think that the general consensus is that they've in essence done that, that the alert has been raised, the public is aware. We're also aware that homeland loosened up some funds that normally would not be available unless the country went to orange, but they've loosened up some money for some localities to use for security purposes.

So in effect many homeland observers say that it's almost as if they are at orange. I think if there were any other specific information that came in, the government would reassess. As you know, they reassess that decision every day. But right now no one is talking about going to orange on a national level.

COLLINS: All right. CNN's Kelli Arena in Washington tonight. Kelly, always happy to have your insight. Thanks again.

Let's get some expert analysis now on the information that Kelli is talking about. (Translation: "Let's see how we can make this Bush's fault.") Joining us tonight from our London bureau is John Gohel. He's the director of international security at the Asia Pacific Foundation.

Mr. Gohel, thanks to you also for being with us tonight.

As you know, about 2 1/2 years ago, U.S. forces went to Afghanistan to basically try to destroy the infrastructure of al Qaeda. Does this latest information mean it was a failure?

JOHN GOHEL, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, ASIA PACIFIC FOUNDATION: What we have to remember, Heidi, about Operation Enduring Freedom is that it was a full frontal exercise. They went in there, totally committed to try and rout out al Qaeda.

But what happened was nobody was guarding the back door, particularly the Pakistani authorities. So all the leading al Qaeda individuals just moved the operators, their personnel and went to Pakistan, where they have stayed. And Pakistan now has become the new center for al Qaeda.

And, unfortunately, yes, there were failings made in that, and unfortunately we've not totally eliminated the total terror structure.

COLLINS: Give me a little bit more clarification on what you mean by not guarding the back door?

GOHEL: There -- there was expectation by the U.S. on the Pakistani authorities that they would pick up any al Qaeda people that were trying to flee from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The long border was expected to be manned, properly secured, but it wasn't. Instead, thousands of al Qaeda individuals and Taliban fighters just simply walked across the border, where they made Pakistan their home.

Let's look at the fact that major key arrests in the last few couple of months -- sorry, last year, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the master planner of 9/11, he was arrested in an army compound in Rawal Pindi (ph). You had Abu Zubaydah, Taki bin al-Taj (ph), Ramzi Binalshibh, other key al Qaeda individuals, all picked up in major cities north in the border regions right in the major cities.

COLLINS: In Pakistan. Tell me then, and I don't know how you characterize this, but how much communication is there actually going on between al Qaeda abroad and then right here in the United States?

GOHEL: Well, one thing we always have to remember, Heidi, is that al Qaeda will always reserve its biggest, most spectacular attacks for U.S. interests in the U.S., as well as abroad.

And certainly, what we have to remember, that 9/11 was a declaration of war on the U.S., and we witnessed follow-up attacks elsewhere in the world.

But certainly one thing is a fact, that there are strong communications between al Qaeda cells throughout the world and particularly with those remaining cells that exist inside the United States. And they're mainly done through the Internet, through Internet chat rooms, which has become a primary source for information to spread amongst cells, because it's very easy to do that. And that is a source that the terrorists have certainly used to their advantage.

COLLINS: Because -- Sir John, do you think that -- that this new information could actually mean that someone has been given a direct order or that a terrorist cell, a sleeper cell has been activated?

GOHEL: I think because this is such a key, critical year for the U.S., a presidential year, there is a strong fear, a very realistic fear that al Qaeda and its affiliates would be planning a similar type of terrorist attack that we witnessed in Spain to proceed the presidential elections, to create maximum fear and damage and to basically derail the political process, to target the world's most powerful democracy.

And certainly because it is now we're approaching that stage, there will have to be a high level of vigilance, because certainly al Qaeda is not finished with the U.S. And we will, unfortunately, witness more attempts, more plots for them to target the U.S.

COLLINS: Sir John Gohel from the Asia Pacific Foundation, thanks so much for joining us tonight.

GOHEL: My pleasure.

(snip)

Why do they print even if it is leaked. They should be carefull to print everything they get leaked or not.

Read the actual Slimes article.

It's only useful to a point. It was published seven days ago, and since then, a lot has come out (including Rice's statements) to suggest that the leak first came from the administration.

None dare call it treaon, but that is what it is.

Newspapers will typically withhold information if there is a compelling national security reason to do so. The problem, in this case, appears to be that no one asked them to hold the name back.

"so when does one go to prison for treason what do you have to do"

If John Walker didn't go to prison for treason, it's safe to say the crime no longer exists.

Your theory sounds very plausible, but I'm not sure we should all sit here and talk about it.

Yes, I hope you are right. There is undoubtedly so much going on that we don't know about -- that we shouldn't know about.

"Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The press, for better or for worse, cannot be prosecuted for what they print, regardless of what it is. That's the 1st Amendment."

I cringe when I hear these words. Freedom of speech should and does have limitations. You cannot, for example, yell FIRE in a movie theatre if there is none. If a nation is at war and a major newspaper publishes 'news' that gives critical information to the enemy, I can't for the life of me see why there can be no legal recriminations.

shhssh

Oh it's all revenge for Joe Wilson or whatever the hell that loser's name is.

"Newspapers will typically withhold information if there is a compelling national security reason to do so. The problem, in this case, appears to be that no one asked them to hold the name back."

I believe it was General Abaziad who asked the press not to publish photos of Abu Grahaib for fear of putting our soldiers in great danger from angry mobs. The liberal press could care less about rules, laws, morals or anything else standing in the way of their communist agenda.

It's only useful to a point. It was published seven days ago, and since then, a lot has come out (including Rice's statements) to suggest that the leak first came from the administration.

Such as what? I'd like to see it.

The Slimes leaked the story first. And they cite Pakistani intelligence. So does the CNN transcript posted by Nita Nupress at 47.