Pakistan Source Under Cover When U.S. Confirmed Name 2 hours, 48 minutes ago By Simon Cameron-Moore and Peter Graff ISLAMABAD/LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. officials providing justification for anti-terrorism alerts revealed details about a Pakistani secret agent, and confirmed his name while he was working under cover in a sting operation, Pakistani sources said on Friday. A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al Qaeda operatives 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." "He was cooperating with interrogators on Sunday and Monday and sent e-mails on both days," the source said. The New York Times published a story on Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts. The newspaper named him as Khan, although it did not say how it had learned his name. U.S. officials subsequently confirmed the name to other news organizations on Monday morning. None of the reports mentioned that Khan was working under cover at the time, helping to catch al Qaeda suspects. President Bush (news - web sites) defended the "orange alert" raised in New York and Washington on Sunday and said his government had an obligation to inform the public of genuine threats. "When we find out intelligence that is real, that threatens people, I believe we have an obligation as government to share that with people," Bush told journalists. BRITISH SWOOP A U.S. official said on Friday one of 12 suspects caught in raids in Britain this week was a senior al Qaeda figure, and Washington would try to extradite him. But British police said they had been forced to carry out their swoop more hastily than planned -- a day after Khan's name appeared in the New York Times as the source of information behind the U.S. alerts. On Monday evening, after Khan's name appeared, Pakistani officials moved him to a secret location. The next day British police mounted the sweep that caught the 12 suspects. Such raids are normally carried out late at night or in the early morning, when suspects might be at home and less likely to resist. But showing clear signs of haste, British police pounced in daylight. Some suspects were taken in shops; others were caught in a high-speed car chase. A British anti-terrorism police source would not comment on the reason for their quick action, but confirmed the raids were carried out faster than planned: "It would be a fair assessment to say there was an urgency. Something can happen that prompts us to take action faster than we would," he told Reuters. A U.S. counterterrorism official told Reuters on Friday that one of the 12 British detainees, known as Abu Musa al-Hindi or Abu Eisa al-Hindi, was a key al Qaeda operative in Britain: "This arrest is a big one." WASHINGTON TO SEEK EXTRADITION He said Hindi was centrally involved in an effort to case possible targets in the United States for al Qaeda attacks, and said Washington would seek to extradite him. Britain has yet to identify or charge any of the suspects or confirm whether Hindi is among them. Intelligence and security experts said they were surprised Washington would reveal information that could expose the name of a source during an ongoing law enforcement operation. "If it's true that the Americans have unintentionally revealed the identity of another nation's intelligence agent, who appears to be working in the good of all of us, that is not only a fundamental intelligence flaw its also a monumental foreign relations blunder," security expert Paul Beaver, a former publisher of Jane's Defense Weekly, told Reuters. Kevin Rosser, security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said such a disclosure was a risk that came with staging public alerts, but that authorities were meant to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations. "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 a separate case, British police have arrested Londoner Babar Ahmad under a U.S. warrant alleging that he helped fund militants in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Chechnya (news - web sites). At his first court appearance on Friday Ahmed said he would fight extradition. (Additional reporting by Michael Holden in London) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040806/ts_nm/security_dc&printer=1
From Juan Cole... _______________ Sunday, August 08, 2004 CNN on Khan Scandal: Has it Prevented the Capture of Bin Laden? The story of how the Bush administration prematurely outed Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a double agent working for Pakistan against al-Qaeda, has finally hit cable television news. MSNBC picked up the story on Saturday. On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the Americans for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of Usamah Bin Laden himself! Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for the Pakistani government. (!!!) Schumer later backed off and said we did not know for sure that the Bush administration had leaked Khan's name. (Didn't he hear what Wolf had just said?!) Republican George Allen (R-Virginia) actually agreed that if Khan's name was released, it was a mistake. I cannot find the Hayat quote mentioned by Schumer. The closest I come is from AP: "Whenever we get hold of high profile al-Qaida activists, there is a great deal of euphoria and excitement, and it leads to a lot of optimism . . . that it will lead us to the eventual prize - the apprehension of Osama and al-Zawahri," Hayyat said. "But we have to be very cautious. This network . . . remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity." But Schumer's point is correct, anyway. The outing of Khan, probably the most important asset the US has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda. Chillingly, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was in contact with five or six persons inside the United States by email. posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 12:50:10 PM ---------------- Bush Outing of Khan and the Faustian Bargain David Johnston of the New York Times tried to get further details of the Bush administration outing of Pakistani double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. But he was stonewalled when he called his Bush administration contacts: "American officials contacted on Saturday would not confirm that Mr. Khan was a mole or double agent and said that his arrest had led to intelligence gains of enormous value in uncovering the surveillance operation in the United States." This response is unresponsive. We already knew that Khan's arrest had led to a gold mine of evidence about al-Qaeda. And, we don't need Washington to tell us whether Khan was a double agent for Pakistani intelligence. It turns out that both the United Kingdom and Pakistan are extremely angry with Bush for going public with the details gleaned from the computers of Khan and Ghailani. In an article for the Observer, British Home Secretary David Blunkett lashed out at the Bush White House over last Sunday's announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge of an old al-Qaeda plot against financial institutions in New York and Washington. Blunkett writes, . . . over the last four days there has been column inch after column inch devoted to the fact that in the United States there is often high-profile commentary followed, as in the most current case, by detailed scrutiny, with the potential risk of inviting ridicule . . . it is important to be able to distinguish if there is a meaningful contribution that helps to secure us from terrorism. And to understand if there isn't. And there are very good reasons why we shouldn't reveal certain information to the public. Firstly, we do not want to undermine in any way our sources of information, or share information which could place investigations in jeopardy. Second, we do not want to do or say anything which would prejudice any trial. Blunkett's measured tones barely disguise his fury at the Bush administration for having gone public with details that have endangered an ongoing British investigation and forced the premature arrest of twelve suspects, against whom it is not clear a case can be made at this point. Blunkett was also clearly dismayed by the controversy that broke out in the US when it was learned that the surveillance of the financial institutions was several years old. Although the Bush administration maintains that the file had been "updated" as late as January 2004, The Guardian says that all this means was that the file was opened in that month. No new information appears to have been entered; this was a sort of browsing. Johnston notes, ' Officials at MI5, the British domestic intelligence agency, have warned that the intense news media coverage in the United States of recent arrests in Britain could interfere with legal efforts to extradite suspects to the United States. ' This mention of extradition appears to refer to Eisa al-Hindi, a cousin of Muhammad Naeem Nur Khan, whom the British had under surveillance but were forced to take into custody prematurely, and against whom MI5 appears to be worried they cannot make a convincing court case of a sort that would allow his extradition to the US. The Guardian's Gaby Hinsliff and Martin Bright note, "there has also been dismay in Whitehall at the willingness of American sources to comment openly on the British cases, amid concerns that the extradition to the US of one of those arrested could be jeopardised." They further explain that some of the resistance in Britain to Bush-style grandstanding is rooted in fear of demagoguery (not a phenomenon that unduly troubles the Bush wing of the Republican Party). They write, Last night, Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, rose to Blunkett's defence, warning of a 'Faustian bargain' between the media and politicians over terrorism. 'I am acutely aware that there is a Faustian bargain on offer for those who want it: airtime, in exchange for ratcheting the fear factor one notch higher,' he told The Observer. Pakistan's Interior Minister, Faisal Saleh Hayat, was also annoyed, according to Dawn: Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat, in an interview on Friday, drew a veil over Khan's contribution to the breakthroughs against Al Qaeda. "This is a very sensitive subject. We must be very careful, we must exercise extreme caution in coming out with such names and such information," the minister said. Hayat is a from a family of Shiite Sufi leaders in the northern Punjab province of Jhang Siyal, and has even more reason to want to fight al-Qaeda than most Pakistani officials. Sunni radicals in Pakistan have targeted Shiites for assassination, and many acts of violence against Shiites have been perpetrated by al-Qaeda ally Sipah-i Sahabah (Army of the Companions of the Prophet) in Jhang Siyal itself. He can only have watched with horror as the Bush administration outed Khan and put an end to his cooperation in giving al-Qaeda cell members enough rope to hang themselves via email communications. There is some evidence that Hayat is also annoyed at other Pakistani government officials like Information Minister Rashid Ahmad, who were willing to confirm the American announcement of Khan's identity. posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 08:02:44 AM http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109198359051366237
Given the magnitude of this blunder, it's going to interesting to see how much news coverage it gets in the U.S.
You can thank the liberals for this one. Without their second-guessing of the raising of the terror threat level and crowing about using the color indicators for political gain, perhaps we could make even more progress instead of having to explain to their whiney mouths why the level is being raised.
Administration: We are going to raise the terror alert to Orange for some targets by AQ. Liberals: Just these targets? Administration: Yes, we have specific information pointing to these targets. Liberals: Really? From who? Administration: We got the info from a captured suspect. Liberals: Can you tell us who? Administration: No. Liberals: We don't believe you. Administration: Well, its true, so they are on high alert. Liberals: We think you are scaring people for political gain. Administration: We're not, we are warning them of danger. Liberals: We think this info is old. Administration: We just obtained it. Liberals: We don't believe you...this is a ploy to cover for past mistakes. Administration: We have recent information from a suspect about possible attacks. Liberals: Prove it. Administration: We can't release that info. Liberals: Liars! Administration: What? You want us to risk leaking this info just to prove us right? Liberals: Yes...your just wasting money on additional resources to scare people. Administration: Fine, we got it from this guy Kahn, a computer wiz...the Pakistanis have him...talk to them Liberals: Oh...OK....Nevermind. One week later: Liberals: Why did you tell us about Kahn? You wasted an opportunity. Administration: What? We told you so you'd shut up. Liberals: Look everybody, what a blunder! Booo! Hisss! Administration: Fine, we won't say anything in the future. Liberals: But we have a right to know! Administration: I thought you just said it was a mistake. Liberals: It is. Administration: But you still want to know? Liberals: Yes. Administration: OK, we'll keep releasing info. Liberals: What? You might ruin opportunities for double agents! Administration: But you just said you want to know about stuff. Liberals: Right, because you are trying to scare people to keep them in line. Administration: AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Seems like the Bush Administration finds it difficult to keep the identities of undercover agents secret. I wonder why?
Yet more proof that you are nothing but a shill. The administration outs a SECOND undercover agent trying to protect us from terrorists and you blame it on "liberals." To quote Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon."
Dammit! If those damn tree-hugging, pot-smoking, Birkenstock-wearing communists would quit making all that noise, this never would have gotten out!
Monday, August 09, 2004 Bush Administration outing of Khan Enabled 5 al-Qaeda Cell Members to Escape Capture Neville Dean of PA News reports that a magistrate has given British police only until Tuesday to finish questioning 9 of 13 men arrested August 3 on suspicion of being part of an al-Qaeda cell. The men had been in email correspondence with Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who since mid-July has been functioning as a double agent for the Pakistani government. He was arrested in Lahore on July 13 and "flipped." The Bush administration revealed Khan's name to US journalists on Sunday August 1 on background, and it appeared in the US press on Monday. The Bush administration thus effectively outed Khan as a double agent (he sent emails to his London contacts as late as Monday). The British MI5 was forced to have the London cell of 13 arrested immediately on Tuesday, fearing that they would flee now that they knew Khan had been arrested two weeks earlier. The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully. It now turns out, according to Neville, that "Reports last week also claimed that five al Qaida militants were on the run in the UK after escaping capture in last Tuesday’s raids." If this is true, it is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest. Of the 13 taken into custody on Aug. 3, two were released for lack of evidence and two others were "no longer being questioned on suspicion of terrorism offences. Two of the men let go on Sunday are being charged or questioned with regard to irregularities in their identity papers or lapsed visas. By Tuesday, British police must charge the remaining 9, release them, or ask the magistrate for yet more time for questioning. Terror suspects may be held in the UK for up to two weeks without being charged, in accordance with the Terrorism Act. One of the 9, Abu Eisa al-Hindi, is a high al-Qaeda official also wanted by the US. Because Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's identity was prematurely released, however, the British may not have enough evidence to extradite him. CNN.com noted Monday morning: " The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said. Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said. In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level . . . The unnamed U.S. officials leaked Khan's name along with confirmation that most of the surveillance data was three or four years old, arguing that its age was irrelevant because al Qaeda planned attacks so far in advance . . . Then on Friday, after Khan's name was revealed, government sources told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in intercepted communications among suspected terrorists." Read between the lines, and CNN is suggesting that the outing of Khan has led to greater caution in al-Qaeda and similar groups about using electronic communications, which may make it more difficult to monitor them. posted by Juan @ 8/9/2004 07:41:47 AM http://www.juancole.com/
Oooooooh that hurts. Is that your new favorite insult now? Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill Shill
Not my favorite, just apropos. Face it, if you can blame "liberals" for the actions of the administration in this case, you have ceased all attempts at reasonable discourse. The administration is to blame here and nothing you can do or say will deflect that.
Senator Asks White House to Explain Khan Leak 1 hour, 58 minutes ago By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. senator asked the White House to explain how and why the name of an al Qaeda informant was leaked to the press, amid concerns it had hurt the war on terror, a letter from the lawmaker showed on Monday. Reuters Photo A Pakistani intelligence source said on Friday that U.S. officials confirmed the name of captured al Qaeda suspect Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan while he was still cooperating with Pakistani authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network, thereby compromising his cover. It is not clear who was the first to disclose Khan's name, but his unmasking triggered criticism on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as speculation about the motives behind the leak. Security and terrorism are top issues for both parties in this year's U.S. presidential elections. "I respectfully request an explanation to me and any other member of Congress who might wish one of who leaked this Mr. Khan's name, for what reason it was leaked, and whether ... reports that this leak compromised future intelligence activity are accurate," Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat from New York, wrote in a letter to White House domestic security adviser Frances Townsend on Aug. 8. A copy of the letter was obtained by Reuters on Monday. Information from computer expert Khan led the United States to issue a high alert at financial institutions against a possible al Qaeda attack earlier this month, and led Britain to arrest 12 al Qaeda suspects. Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, said on television on Sunday: "In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us."' Terrorism experts said the reasons for the release of Khan's name could range from a judgment error to a sophisticated ploy designed to put al Qaeda on edge about the extent to which the network has been infiltrated by moles. One former senior U.S. intelligence official said he suspected a political motive. "I don't think that the U.S. intelligence community has shown enough creativity over the last few years for anyone to think of anything as smart as misdirection, or trying to send signals to al Qaeda," he said. Asked about the release of Khan's name, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said on Sunday it was a hard line to draw between giving the public too much or too little information about terrorist threats. "We did not, of course, publicly disclose his name," Rice said, adding that it had been given "on background." She did not say when or by whom the name was first revealed. Khan's capture was part of a Pakistani crackdown, which began a month ago and has dealt al Qaeda a major blow. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040809/us_nm/security_usa_khan_dc&printer=1
If true, there's no way to spin this. What a ****-up! Just let the whiners keep on b****ing about terror threats being raised. Who gives a damn? They're gonna b**** about something anyway. I'm hoping the releasing of the name was more ignorance than it was a calculated decision...not that it would comfort me very much
So you're admitting that the Administration was trading votes for lives? Wouldn't you rather get voted out of office than let aq operatives get away to kill more civilians? That's your worst post ever. You're quite bright enough to not let party affiliations trump your common sense.
... National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it. ... So who was supposed to shut up?
While your response paints the more accurate picture of what happened, I was happy that Supermac 34 used his portrait of events. It made it look as if this administration can't help but give in when asked questions. 'They made us tell the name...' It only helped to further make this administration look like poor leaders.
