U.S. Intercepting Messages Hinting at a New Attack

The New York Times ^ | 5/18/02 (for editions of 5/19/02) | James Risen and David Johnston

[GeneD]

WASHINGTON, May 18 — American intelligence agencies have intercepted a vague yet troubling series of communications among Al Qaeda operatives over the last few months indicating that the terrorist organization is trying to carry out an operation as big as or bigger than the Sept. 11 attacks, according to intelligence and law enforcement officials.

But just as last summer's threats left counterterrorism analysts guessing about Al Qaeda's intentions, and believing that the attack might be carried out overseas, the new interceptions are so general that they have left President Bush and his counterterrorism team in the dark about the time, place or method of what some officials refer to as a second-wave attack. As a result, the government is essentially limited to taking broad defensive measures.

"It's again not specific — not specific as to time, not specific as to place," one senior administration official said.

The officials compared the intercepted messages, which they described as cryptic and ambiguous, to the pattern of those picked up last spring and early summer, when Qaeda operatives were also overheard talking about a big operation. Those signals were among the evidence that intelligence agencies presented to President Bush in August about the possibility of an imminent attack against the United States.

The senior official said Friday that the amount of intelligence relating to another possible attack, in Europe, the Arabian Peninsula or the United States, had increased in the last month. Some of it comes from interviews with fighters captured in Afghanistan.

But despite the disruption of Al Qaeda's operations around the world since Sept. 11, and despite major spending increases and shifts of resources to counterterrorism operations, American officials say they have not been able to fully piece together the clues about Al Qaeda's plans.

"There's just a lot of chatter in the system again," the official said. "We are actively pursuing it and trying to see what's going on here."

The government's frustration underscores the problem in fighting an unconventional foe like Al Qaeda.

Interviews with law enforcement and intelligence officials suggest that in the eight months since Sept. 11 the government has made only limited progress in its ability to predict Al Qaeda's next move, and that many proposed improvements in counterterrorism operations have yet to be put into effect.

This is despite considerable advantages that the United States lacked a year ago. The war in Afghanistan has provided a wealth of new information about Al Qaeda's structure and organization, for example.

In addition, the United States is also interrogating captured Qaeda fighters about the organization's plans. Officials say that debriefings of detainees have in some instances provided general warnings of another major attack that dovetail with the threats picked up in the intercepted communication traffic.

Facing intense criticism in recent days over disclosures that a series of possible clues about Al Qaeda's plans fell through the cracks in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, officials say that some significant changes have been made in the way threat information is studied and circulated within the upper reaches of the Bush administration.

For the first time, the C.I.A. and F.B.I. now compare notes on all terrorist threat information that comes in each day, filtering the intelligence through what they call an analytical "matrix" to determine which threats are the most credible and deserve the most attention. Their daily threat report is distributed to senior policy makers, including the White House director of homeland security, Tom Ridge. It provides a structure for debates among senior officials about whether to issue public threat warnings.

President Bush also now receives daily briefings from both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, are frequently present during those White House sessions. That way, each agency is able to hear the other's latest advice to the president. Before Sept. 11, he received a daily briefing only from the C.I.A.

Although officials say some potential attacks have been foiled, that has been largely credited to the arrest of terrorist operatives overseas by foreign governments rather than to intelligence gleaned from intercepted communications.

United States intelligence officials said that they began to intercept communications among Qaeda operatives discussing a second major attack in October, and that they have detected recurring talk among them about another attack ever since. Some of the intercepted communications have included frightening references to attacks that the Qaeda operatives say would cause vast numbers of American casualties.

The intercepted communications don't point to any detailed plans for an attack, and even the messages mentioning mass casualties don't refer specifically to the use of weapons of mass destruction like chemical, biological or nuclear devices.

Still, American officials say they believe the intercepts represent some of the most credible intelligence they have received since Sept. 11 about Al Qaeda's intentions. They have provided a troubling undercurrent for the Bush administration as it tries to sort through the hundreds of other terrorist threat warnings it has received over the past few months.

The pattern of intercepted communications that began last October has helped prompt at least five public threat alerts issued by the F.B.I. since last fall.

By contrast, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials say they have been skeptical of many of the far more specific threats they have received from individual informants over the past few months. One of the problems now facing American counterterrorism experts is that they say communications intercepts, while vaguely worded, are often highly credible threat warnings, while the very detailed and specific threats passed on by individual informants are often far less reliable.

Individual informants who approach American investigators in the United States or overseas often know what kind of story will get the biggest reaction. They also often come forward because of hidden motives, perhaps hoping for money or entrance into the United States. The C.I.A. routinely gives its informants polygraph tests in an effort to validate their stories.

But officials say that in some cases they have been forced to take tales told by informants more seriously than they otherwise might, at least in part because officials suspect from the intercepted communications that Al Qaeda is planning something big.

In recent months, officials have issued threat alerts regarding nuclear plants, financial institutions and even specific structures like the Seattle Space Needle and the Golden Gate Bridge, even as some counterterrorism experts privately regarded those threats as not based on solid intelligence.

Some officials say the government's new color-coded threat alert system is less useful than the system it replaced, because it is subject to political influences from appointees who are fearful of being criticized if they fail to pass on every possible threat, no matter how remote.

Yet even as the less credible threats have been widely publicized, the more worrisome and credible undercurrent of intercepted communications has not been made public.

In hindsight, analysts now view the pattern of intercepted communications they saw last May, June and July as a sign of the impending attacks. Those intercepts, coming after embassy bombings in Africa and the suicidal bombing of a Navy ship in an Arabian port, were sometimes alarming.

Their references to mass attacks against American interests prompted a series of public alerts against possible terrorist attacks last summer, including one concerning a possible strike over the Fourth of July holiday. Officials said that they never had any evidence that an attack would occur inside the United States, and instead focused most of their attention on possible strikes against American facilities in the Middle East, Europe or Asia.

After the summer holiday passed quietly without any attacks, American analysts were relieved, but still believed that an attack might be coming. However, they lacked any further details of where or when the strike might come, and some officials began to think that the immediate danger might have passed. Now that analysts are seeing a similar pattern of communications intercepts, they say they are determined to avoid a repeat of that mistake.

[ahmedtousay1]

Gene

I am surprised at your lack of awareness of historical evidence. Carter initiated and Reagan escalated BIG TIME the arming of bin Laden in the 1980's to fight the Ruskies.

That is just for starters.

You are trying to simplify here and it will simply not fly in the face of the truth.

Eldar Pompov

[rageaholic]

Yeah, fire Tom Ridge, aquit Slobbo and send him to Washinton. Homeland security problem SOLVED.

[Stallone]

*Hint* America needs to find out who is sending those messages then wash and spin dry the towel heads - with their heads still attached.

[rageaholic]

Oh, and I realize the "unconventional" aspect of it (e.g. "asymetric warfare") But it will be equally unconventional when these f*ckers engage 200M+ armed Americans on US soil.

I hope it is occurring to people, as it recently did to me, that the 2nd Amendment is the failsafe the founding fathers built into the constitution for just such a contingency. Those guys were damned smart.

[KirkandBurke]

U.S. Intercepting Messages Hinting at a New Attack

There must be some new Liberty-Destroying Legislation waiting to be passed. One more incident, one more turn of the screw.

Remember the Reichstag!

[Washington_minuteman]

"Ive watched your posts and you dont get it. Since Clintoon the government has become our lasting friend. Its now incapable of lying to us or trampling our rights. You need to get a clue-- and jump on the war wagon like you are told by the media. The media was bad under Hillary and Clintoon, but now its not. Got it?"

Call me an insufferable boor, but I'll ever do a Winston Smith, claiming to have won a victory over himself, and learning to love Big Brother, moments before the executioner's bullet shattered his skull. I may have to take the bullet, but I'll never love Big Brother.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Did Ridge change the color scheme yet?

LOL. What nonsense!

A more useful code would be:

DEFCON2: Start Profiling.

DEFCON3: Start stockpiling weapons, ammunition, and supplies.

DEFCON4: Mobilize neighborhood defenses. Begin citizen arrests.

DEFCON5: Escalate militia offensive as necessary.

[Stallone]

My prediction is Washington buildings (either the Capitol building, White House or Pentagon), Los Angeles airport, or the Shuttle are next.

Why?

The Islamo-Terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 - they only damaged it, but later succeeded in destroying it in 2001.

They attempted to attack the Pentagon and possibly the Capitol building in 2001 with limited success. They also attempted to blow up LA airport in a plot that was thwarted at the Canadian border.

Will they change targets? Perhaps not. The method of attack however will likely change, as it did between the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks.

What will the new attack method be?

Unknown, but isn't it interesting that the Islamos have already attacked the U.S. by Land, by Sea and by Air. This is probably intentionally scripted, perhaps to attempt to display their reach and power.

The only thing left besides Land, Sea and Air, is Space. The Shuttle?

[Hot Tabasco]

After this latest assault on this administration withholding terrorist information, I am taking all info released super seriously!

Tell my boss that I refuse to fly to Calif. on Monday or any other day until this vague threat has been eliminated.

Also tell my boss that I will not be in to work on Monday or any other day until all possible threats against our office building have been eliminated.

Tell my boss that I will not be answering my phone when he calls to tell me I am fired until all potential threats against the phone company have been eliminated!

All kidding aside, I am absolutely fed up with all this heightened terrorist awareness B.S.! Airport security up until 9/11 has been in effect and extremely successful for at least the past 25 years and millions of airline departures due to the potential of airline hijacking.

Sorry, I for one do not believe that further security precautions need to be taken only that the existing procedures need to be adhered to.

As I am typing this, ABC news is warning of a new heightened security alert!

"Al Quaeda "MIGHT" target apartment buildings in the U.S."

WHOA! Time to buy a house! I'm out of here!

Sorry, but the only international news I deem necessary is the ongoning situation in Israel. Another domestic terrorist act? Forget about it, it ain't gonna happen in the next 10 years.

Oh, tell my boss I will be on that flight on Monday.....

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I'm not wanting to be anywhere in the neighborhood if they cook off a dirty nuke. Won't matter how many of us are locked & loaded.

I disagree completely with sentence #2. This will make ALL of the difference.

[mrfixit514]

What a smartass reply. Are you so sure you can protect your family? I have plenty of weapons but I still realize that I can't protect my family 100%. I have to go to work. I have to go to sleep. Principled is right. We should deport all people of middle eastern origin. They have no business being here. They are the enemy. While you are worried about your fictional "big brother" the terrorist are for real and they would love to kill us all.

[FreeTheHostages]

Yes and well. Remember 9/11. I define civil liberties broadly. I think people who think civil liberties are inconsistent with law and order have too narrow a definition.

[section9]

What our Jihadist friends don't realize (well, perhaps the real smart ones do) is that the United States is so well armed at the civilian level that this country can become, on very short notice, as armed as the Northwest Frontier in Pakistan.

The Eurotrash could never respond on a popular level like we could, simply because the concept of the militiaman is alien to them. So they trust the State to protect them.

We do too, but sometimes we know that Government effs up. September 11th was one of those times. The left hand simply didn't know what the right hand was doing, and our friends from AQ walked right through the gaping hole in our defensive line. They didn't even have to run. They simply walked through.

Here's my suggestion, for what its worth. Al Qaeda, I think, has us concentrating on spectacular, Big-Time-Film-At-11, attacks. What if they switched tactics?

What if they tried to take a leaf out of Hamas' or Fatah's playbook?

Suicide bombings. Better yet, commando attacks on populated areas or military installations. Oh sure, the commandos would die, of course. But, the attacks would be designed to show the American people that their government couldn't even protect them at the local level.

This is where the Second Amendment comes in. This is our ace in the hole. When a holiday or an event comes around in which people will tend to gather together, that's when all you Concealed Carry folks start, well, carrying.

Start thinking less like Americans, and more like Israelis, and we just might be able to engage the little buggers quicker than they anticipated.

If there is one thing I would recommend to Bush, it would be for him to declare that "open carry" should be recommended. Sadly, I don't think they've come to that conclusion yet.

Yeah, a big attack is just as likely as this one, but several smaller, but very bloody attacks at the same time is just as likely.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Prodigal Son]

I say, give'm the Holy War they seek!

Right on. Jihad American style. We won't be losing the Crusade this time around.

[Washington_minuteman]

Thanks. I suspect that the individual I was sparring with may, in the final analysis, actually agree with me. I've read too many posts, heard too many people, talk like this "profiling" will solve all our problems. In the short term, and under benign administration, it would be helpful to investigate every Arab and Islamic in this country. However, under the circumstances, and considering who is running the show and their track record, it would be only another step closer to the end of the Republic.

If we could somehow pull in the reins of the government, repeal all unconstitutional laws and edicts, and insure that those in power, would not turn on us, to devour out freedom and liberty, then we could talk about profiling for terrorists.

The painful reality is, however, the situation is so convoluted and the players so intertwined, I'm not sure that anything can be fixed. This may very well be the Death of the West, and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

[ET(end tyranny)]

The very same thing that Bush was given before 9/11. Now act on it.

I would hope that it would get more specific. 9-11 was a disaster that should not happen again.

[inflorida]

Looking at a July 4 scenario, a plane crashing into the July 4 crowd around the Washington Monument would make a big mess

I was thinking about that too. Besides a plane crash, there are many other worse possibilities. I think the average crowd at the Mall is about 500,000 and I don't see how security will be regulated.
I'm guessing many D.C. folks will be staying home this 4th of July.

[Trust but Verify]

How so, Mad Tom?

[Washington_minuteman]

"What a smartass reply. Are you so sure you can protect your family? I have plenty of weapons but I still realize that I can't protect my family 100%. I have to go to work. I have to go to sleep. Principled is right. We should deport all people of middle eastern origin. They have no business being here. They are the enemy. While you are worried about your fictional "big brother" the terrorist are for real and they would love to kill us all."

Are you so sure that my fictional "big brother" is indeed a fiction? Something I just made up to antagonize folks like you?

Can you deny that the United Nations exists? Do you deny the inherently evil nature of Mankind? Do you deny that lots of people are becoming very wealthy as a result of all this?

Yes, the terrorists are real, but they are pawns in a bigger game. Surrendering our rights for the perception of safety from terror is a colossal mistake.

None of us can be 100% safe, 100% of the time. That's the risk of living in a free and open society. We can maximize our level of safety by being responsible, not only for ourselves, by watching out for the well being of our neighbors, too. If we permit the government to exercize all the powers it desires, then it's just a matter of time before the liberals, socialists, fascists and communists, will be on here, advocating that "we" be profiled as terrorists.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Good point. Time for the Bush administration to get serious and send every muslim, citizen or not back to their homeland. I believe that most muslims secretly want their fanatical bretherns to win.

I am not convinced that this is the case. Certainly we have to arrest, jail, and deport many of them. We should begin ASAP with those who are here gratis of the USA ("students" etc.) from the suspect nations. The FedGov has a responsibility to protect us by not permitting entry of potentially dangerous people. What better profile to startv with than arab males from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. We could certainly get by without them until such time in the future as the risk has been mitigated (e.g until these f*ckers become CIVILIZED). Yes, some innocents would be harmed, but too bad. We are not "obligated" to allow ANYONE to entery our country. Entry is a PRIVELEGE, not a right. This policy could provide an incentive to the "home nation" to clean house. If they do not, the only business they will be doing with the USA will be receiving airborne armaments that explode upon impact.

But, I am not as yet willing to assume that ALL muslims, including US citizens, are hell bent on harming us. In any population, there is a diversity of viewpoints (withthe exception that citizens shouold be loyal to their country). It would be better for the USA if the law-abiding Muslim population could be enlisted to assist in eradicating the radical element. From what I have read, they are probably as "at risk" as we are from their fringe element.