Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a U.S. Security Blunder-Experts

[muchacho]

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.

"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."

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.

<SNIP>

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5902856

[mbperrin]

1. Remind me again why we call them "intelligence" officials......

hmmmmmmmmmm

[muchacho]

2. Imperial Hubris

I highly recommend this book to everyone in this forum. Blunders like this just underscore the observations made by the senior intelligence official that authored it.

[janx]

8. Don't blame intelligence officials. We had this guy working

for us, it appears--for awhile.

[muchacho]

3. Did Bush Administration Burn Key Al Qaeda Double?

Did Bush Administration Burn Key Al Qaeda Double?


Simon Cameron-Moore and Peter Graff of Reuters reveal the explosive information that the Bush administration blew the cover Monday of double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. On Sunday August 1, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced a new alert against an al-Qaeda plot concerning fincial institutions in New York and Washington, DC.

Pressed for details by the New York Times, some Bush administration official revealed that the information came from a recently arrested man in Pakistan named "Khan." The New York Times published his name on Monday.

Reuters alleges,

"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."



I don't have access to a hard copy of last Monday's NYT anymore, and so cannot check. The article as it appears in Lexis Nexis, from the "late edition" on Monday, already has Khan's full name.

Douglas Jehl and David Rohde wrote in the article published Monday, Aug. 2, "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." Reuters seems to say that the first, early morning edition of the article just identified the figure as "Khan."

Reuters implies that once the Americans blew Khan's cover, the Pakistani ISI were willing to give Rohde more details in Karachi.

This part of the Reuters chronology seems not quite right to me, unless the early-edition Jehl/Rohde story on Monday only gave "Khan" and not the full name.

Anyway, Khan had been secretly apprehended by Pakistani military intelligence in mid-July, and had been turned into a double agent. He was actively helping investigators penetrate further into al-Qaeda cells and activities via computer, and was still cooperating when the "senior Bush administration" figure told Jehl about him.

<snip>

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040807Cole.shtml

[burrowowl]

5. They blew Plame

does our pResident really want us to be safer?

[54anickel]

7. But who is this Bush admin official? Will we ever know? If the Plame

incident is any indication - no way! This leak is just as foul smelling as the Plame leak!

Using pressured by the media to explain the elevated "terralert" is such a f***ing lame excuse. Since when do they give into any media pressure for the truth! What media pressure for that matter. The only pressure they were under was cynicism. Can't have anyone doubting their fear-mongering.

[MichiganVote]

4. US = 000Zero's, nice political move, very smooth

[k in IA]

6. Dupe - this is on the Home page.

But anything to get some more attention on this issue I am all for.

[merh]

9. This is not a blunder .... IT IS A CRIME

How any one could associate the intentional leaking of information regarding an intelligence source that was cultivating intellligence against Al Qaeda as a blunder is beyond me.

Criminal, treasonous, treacherous, political demons.

Not only has the leak endangered our safety, but the safety of any nation that has assisted in the war in Iraq.

[54anickel]

11. Yep, but rarely prosecuted.

From the Kitty Harris story earlier this week.

Disclosure of classified information is forbidden by law and by the rules of Congress, which require members to take an oath. However, prosecutions or sanctions of members for revealing secret information are rare.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1153&slug=Harris%20Terror%20Plot

[gulliver]

10. Do I have this right?

The Bushies put out a terror alert. Then they got asked why they did it. And then "U.S. officials told reporters that someone held secretly by Pakistan was the source of the bulk of the information justifying the alert."

Is that right? Can that be right?

I mean, if that were right, I would have to yell something like: GET THESE IDIOTS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!

Please tell me I've missed something.

[54anickel]

12. Think that about sums it up. ;-)

[enough]

13. Yes,

and this should immediately become a Kerry talking point.

[muchacho]

14. agreed

This is a marked example of incompetence and it seems like it could do some real damage if used on the Sunday chatter shows.

[acmavm]

15. Not incompetence, just trying to cover their asses when it came out that

a lot of the crap that they were using to justify the newest alert was 3 to 4 years old. So, self-serving smug bastards that they are, they decided to burn a double agent that was working against Al Quaeda to make themselves look good.

This is not about protecting anything, it's about maintaining control over this country.

[muchacho]

16. treasonous

"it's about maintaining control over this country."

and all the while losing control due to ignorance about of foes and how to best beat them.

Bush et al are treasonous in the highest (lowest) sense.

[leftchick]

17. I agree completely... a perfect example of dipshit*s Hubris.....

harming America! Go with it John!

[struggle4progress]

18. After all, Rove runs the White House, and he cares more ...

about the political game than the actual intelligence.