Posted on 08/10/2004 8:41:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
In looking at your posting history, you have an interesting streak of "contrariness" at FR. Whether you are a troll or not -- you appear to at the very least trust your mainstream media (you previously indicated that the idea of the media being biased in favor of democrats was a just a tired old "cliche").
I would admit the stories have made assessing the "facts" here difficult. The NYT Aug. 2 story says the Pakis told them. Then the spin hit. Then Condi talks about a background interview. If the Administration purposefully did it, someone should be punished, assuming we knew the guy was helping the cause.
But why should this be a one way street? If this did come from the Pakis, shouldn't the people who've said otherwise be punished? Oh I forgot. Accountability is the media isn't necessary. They're just honest professionals who make honest mistakes. One way.
Your posting history on FR seems to indicate you somehow come out against the President's position about 90% of the time. Of course, everyone is welcome on FR . . . but I don't want folks to get the impression that you actually believe in conservative causes too much in the first place. (I find your posts helpful personally because for the most part I think they help keep the discussion "honest.")
Things have taken a dramatic turn. The press cannot be trusted with any information. The Major Media Press, particularly the LA Times and the NY Times are actively working to undermine our war effort both in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.
That being said, whoever allowed this leak to get to the NY Times should be fired and prosecuted. We need to make it clear to every member of the administration that the NY Times and Al Queda are on the same side in this war and giving informatikon to anyone who might give it to the NY Times is the same as giving the information directly to Osama Bin Laden.
I would shut the NYT down for 30 days.
The "newspapers" did not originally get that information from the Bush administration. It came from Paki intelligence. The point is the newspapers ARE trying to pretend it's "Bush's fault" so their boy will gain votes.
No they SHOULDN'T. They're innocent.
Read the article! It was the PAKISTANIS, not the US gov't officials. I don't know what it takes to get through to some of you, but this is a bogus smear by the Democrats to distract from the Kerry Vietnam war record, or should we say the lack of it.
Like some others, I want to hear Condi say -- the NYT got the information from the U.S. government PRIOR to its article. Everything I read at the time said the U.S. govt only confirmed the name after the article was published.
Since you are such a Bush/FR skeptic, explain how it is you are so confident it this statement:
"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak," he said.
Wow. That's great. Can an unnamed Bush Administration official stroll out and say "We have checked. No U.S. official made this intelligence leak to the NYT prior to its Aug. 2 article." Would that clear everything up for you?
Gimme a break. The Pakistani intelligence service is fighting (at times literally) amongst itself. And yet, within one week, they have "checked" and no one leaked the info. Boy, that's one efficient intelligence organization. And people like you -- are willing to eat it hook, line, and sinker.
(there's still the question as to what Condi actually said, I understand.)
:') Of course. Now the spin is, the information was leaked by the administration, so it doesn't matter who printed it.
And the trolls will come out in force to back up this propaganda.
The Boston Globe
August 10, 2004
LEAK OF QAEDA SUSPECT NAME CRITICIZED
By Charlie Savage and Bryan Bender
WASHINGTON -
--snip--
Last week, The New York Times published a front-page article disclosing that an Al Qaeda computer specialist named Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan had been captured in mid-July and provided information that led to last week's alert raising the terrorism-risk color code to orange, or high.
Until then, Khan was assisting Pakistani intelligence in contacting key Al Qaeda operatives around the world. The revelation of his capture compromised any chance he could lead authorities to other terrorists and prompted British authorities to hurriedly arrest a dozen suspected terrorists they had been covertly watching.
The Times report cited both "senior American officials" and Pakistani sources. Yesterday, Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, demanded the administration clarify which provided the name.
--snip--
Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice denied knowing if Khan had been cooperating with Pakistani intelligence, but left it unclear where the leak came from: "I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan," Rice said. "I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name."
Blitzer asserted: "He was disclosed in Washington on background."
Rice replied: "On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance."
Later in the show, Blitzer said this exchange meant Rice had confirmed that the administration released Khan's name to a reporter on background an interpretation repeated in later news accounts. But Sean McCormack, a National Security Council spokesman, said yesterday that Rice did not say the leak came from American officials.
"She was in the middle of making a point and he interrupted her, and she reflexively repeated 'on background,' but she was not confirming it and went on to complete her thought," McCormack said.
Senior intelligence officials gave a background briefing to reporters Aug. 1 after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced an orange alert for sites in New York, Washington, and Newark. Khan's name does not appear in the transcript.
The day of Ridge's press conference, an intelligence official told the Globe that the information came from an unannounced arrest in Pakistan, but declined to provide the identity of the detained person for fear of revealing a CIA operation. That official, reached again yesterday, said he was referring to Khan at the time.
--snip--
I suppose it wouldn't exactly be good foreign policy for Rice to say, "Yeah, some moron in Pakistan's ISI leaked this."
Where is a link to the original NYSlimes article? I want to see why the Globe didn't put quotation marks around the words 'Pakistani sources' like they around with "senior American officials." I suspect this is a subtle attempt to plant an idea in the reader's mind.
That won't shut the trolls up, but it will hopefully clarify for those who aren't trolls...just confused. Thanks, Nita
To: capnhaddockHere's the Slimes original article (emphasis is mine). Reading between the lines, some here (including me) have speculated that the name was leaked to the Slimes by Pakistani intelligence:
August 2, 2004
INTELLIGENCECaptured Qaeda Figure Led Way to Information Behind Warning
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID ROHDE
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 - 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.
A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said "documentary evidence" found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.
One senior American intelligence official said the information was more detailed and precise than any he had seen during his 24-year career in intelligence work. A second senior American official said it had provided a new window into the methods, content and distribution of Qaeda communications.
"This, for us, is a potential treasure trove," said a third senior American official, an intelligence expert, at a briefing for reporters on Sunday afternoon.
The documentary evidence, whose contents were reported urgently to Washington on Friday afternoon, immediately elevated the significance of other intelligence information gathered in recent weeks that had already been regarded as highly troubling, senior American intelligence officials said. Much of that information had come from Qaeda detainees in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan, and some had also pointed to a possible attack on financial institutions, senior American intelligence officials said.
The American officials said the new evidence had been obtained only after the capture of the Qaeda figure. Among other things, they said, it demonstrated that Qaeda plotters had begun casing the buildings in New York, Newark and Washington even before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Among the questions the plotters sought to answer, senior American intelligence officials said, were how best to gain access to the targeted buildings; how many people might be at the sites at different hours and on different days of the week; whether a hijacked oil tanker truck could serve as an effective weapon; and how large an explosive device might be required to bring the buildings down.
The American officials would say only that the Qaeda figure whose capture had led to the discovery of the documentary evidence had been captured with the help of the C.I.A. Though Pakistan announced the arrest last week of a Qaeda member, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of American embassies in East Africa, the American officials suggested that he had not been the source of the new threat information.
An account provided by a Pakistani intelligence official made clear that the crucial capture in recent weeks had been that of Mr. Khan, who is also known as Abu Talha. The intelligence official provided information describing Mr. Khan as having assisted in evaluating potential American and Western targets for terrorist attacks, and as being representative of a "new Al Qaeda."
The Pakistani official described Mr. Khan as a fluent English speaker who had told investigators that he had visited the United States, Britain, Germany and other countries. Mr. Khan was one of thousands of Pakistani militants who trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban in the 1990's, the Pakistani official said.
If indeed Mr. Khan was the man whose arrest led the C.I.A. to new evidence, his role as a kind of clearinghouse of Qaeda communications, as described by the Pakistani intelligence official, could have made him a vital source of information. Since his arrest, Mr. Khan has described an elaborate communications system that involves the use of high and low technology, the Pakistani official said.
The question of how much to rely on information obtained from captured foes has always weighed on the intelligence business. In recent weeks, even as they cited accounts from some captured Qaeda members as the basis for new concerns about terrorism, American intelligence officials have acknowledged that another captured Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, had recanted claims that Iraq had provided training in illicit weapons to Qaeda members.
Mr. Libi's earlier claims had been the primary basis for assertions by President Bush and his top advisers that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and gases" to Qaeda members.
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, such as copies of e-mail communications.
The Qaeda communications system that Mr. Khan used and helped operate relied on Web sites and e-mail addresses in Turkey, Nigeria and the northwestern tribal areas of Pakistan, according to the information provided by a Pakistani intelligence official.
The official said Mr. Khan had told investigators that couriers carried handwritten messages or computer disks from senior Qaeda leaders hiding in isolated border areas to hard-line religious schools in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province.
Other couriers then ferried them to Mr. Khan on the other side of the country in the eastern city of Lahore, and the computer expert then posted the messages in code on Web sites or relayed them electronically, the Pakistani official said.
Mr. Khan had told investigators that most of Al Qaeda's communications were now done through the Internet, the official said. After a message was sent and read by the recipient, the entire communication and related files were deleted to maintain secrecy, he said. Mr. Khan had told investigators that e-mail addresses were generally not used more than a few times.
The young computer engineer, who received a bachelor's degree from a university in Karachi, is the unemployed son of an employee of Pakistan's state airline and a college botany professor, the official said. Heavily built and 6 feet 2 inches tall, he speaks English with a British accent, and was arrested carrying a fake Pakistani identification card.
The Pakistani official said Mr. Khan told investigators that he had received 25 days of training at a militant camp in Afghanistan in June 1998. By the time Mr. Khan had risen to his current position, the official said, Qaeda figures had arranged his marriage and were paying him $170 a month for rent for his house in Lahore and $90 for expenses.
Mr. Khan was in contact with the brother of the Indonesian Qaeda leader Hambali, who was studying in a religious school in Karachi, and who was recently deported. Mr. Khan has told interrogators that his Qaeda handler was a Pakistani he knew as Adil or Imran, who assigned him tasks related to computer work, Web design and managing the handler's messages. His correspondents included a Saudi-based Yemeni, Egyptian and Palestinian nationals and Arabs in unknown locations, and someone described as the "in-charge" in the city of Khost in eastern Afghanistan.
Asked about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr. Khan has told interrogators that even the top Qaeda commanders do not know, the Pakistani intelligence official said.
Douglas Jehl reported from Washington for this article, and David Rohde from Karachi, Pakistan.
34 posted on 08/09/2004 10:36:10 PM CDT by conservative in nyc
For those who don't want to read:
"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.
"A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said "documentary evidence" found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday."
Fot those with short memories: Kahn wasn't the only one arrested that particular day in that particular place.
LOL...thanks
A bit late, but thanks anyway.
I would like to see the transcript. Where and when did she say this?
On CNN's 'Late Edition' last Sunday:
BLITZER: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?
RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...
BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.
RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike.
RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...
BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.
RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike.
Rice is absolutely right on about the difficulty with striking a balance. It can be a "damned if you do..." situation. However, if there really was an investigation that was compromised by this leak, I think it's a bad thing.
I see you're ignoring the original Times article and concentrating on a slip of the tongue in a later interview.
I'm not ignoring anything. My point is that Rice acknowledged that this info was given out on background.
And, by the way, we both know that there was no "slip of the tongue". Blitzer mentioned that it was on background and Rice confirmed that.
I am skeptical as to whether or not this actually impeded an investigation. But if it did, then that is not a good thing.
I don't understand why you're so sure it wasn't a slip of the tongue. I don't understand how you can use 'background' interchangably with 'original leak' as your posts appear to imply. You see, the problem wasn't 'bacground', if that 'background' was given AFTER the 'original leak'. The problem is the 'original leak' and NO, they are not one and the same.
Who cares what Wolf thinks? He's supposed to report, not opine on someone else's thoughts. There's no way to know whether the investigation was compromised. The LEAK, however, came not from Condi but from the Pakistanis. The NY Times originally credited the Pakis for the information. You're parsing for some reason.
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.