Pakistan Source Under Cover When U.S. Confirmed Name

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security.html?pagewanted=print&position=)


By REUTERS

Filed at 6:54 p.m. ET

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.


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.


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.


i see politics comes before actually protecting the country from terrorism. i wonder if this is incompetence or malice.

[SuperChuck]

Didn't you see the name of the exposed agent, Zim? This administration has little regard for anybody named Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan.

[Leo Hubbard]

Nothing they do is good enough. First it was timing to make the DNC look bad or something like that. Prove that it wasn't and now that is wrong too. Damn if they do and Damn if they don't.

[SuperChuck]

Nothing they do is good enough.

Exposing the name of a spy who is currently undercover and working for us?

Yeah - that's not good enough.

That's actually a monumental blunder that will possibly get a man killed. Kinda hard to argue that calling this one DUMB is politically motivated.

[zimv20]

from the article:

``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.
this administration has repeatedly stressed how difficult and important it is to infiltrate AQ w/ human intelligence. the ISI had a guy in there, who was providing intelligence, and the bush administration up and outs him.

wtf kind of response is, "it's never good enough?" LH, do you not comprehend what's going on? these are the actions of an administration that, judging by its actions, wants AQ to keep on attacking, and you want to let them off the hook for the simple reason that a couple of nobodies in a political chat forum think bush is doing a bad job?!?!

what's wrong w/ you? can you see past politics and simply make a determination if outing a spy working for you is a good or bad thing? are you capable of making that determination?

[SuperChuck]

The following is from a CNN article just posted online, which claims that "chatter" has come to a halt in recent days:

Pakistan authorities arrested a key al Qaeda suspect, Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan, in mid-July. Officials said chatter continued after that arrest, but has fallen off in recent days.

Full article here... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/06/terror.wrap/index.html)

Notice the name...it's the same guy the Reuter's article is talking about.

Now, I'm no genius, but I think when you expose your spy, the chatter might drop off a bit.

[Leo Hubbard]

Exposing the name of a spy who is currently undercover and working for us?

Yeah - that's not good enough.

That's actually a monumental blunder that will possibly get a man killed. Kinda hard to argue that calling this one DUMB is politically motivated.
And had they not said anything you would've been talking about how they weren't doing enough. Besides I think he was already exposed that is why they pulled him and since the enemy already knew who he was there was no reason to hide him from the press any longer.

[skunk]

And had they not said anything you would've been talking about how they weren't doing enough. Besides I think he was already exposed that is why they pulled him and since the enemy already knew who he was there was no reason to hide him from the press any longer.
Think again:

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

Sat Aug 7, 2004 12:46 PM ET
By Peter Graff

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.

None of those reports mentioned at the time that Khan had been under cover helping the authorities catch al Qaeda suspects, and that his value in that regard was destroyed by making his name public.

A day later, Britain hastily rounded up terrorism suspects, some of whom are believed to have been in contact with Khan while he was under cover. Washington has portrayed those arrests as a major success, saying one of the suspects, named Abu Musa al-Hindi or Abu Eissa al-Hindi, was a senior al Qaeda figure.

But British police have acknowledged the raids were carried out in a rush. Suspects were dragged out of shops in daylight and caught in a high speed car chase, instead of the usual procedure of catching them at home in the early morning while they can offer less resistance.

"HOLY GRAIL" OF INTELLIGENCE

Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.

"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?

"It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IVNJOFXF3SFEUCRBAEZSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=5902856

[IJ Reilly]

So where are all the people who were so incensed over the Sandy Berger incident?

(I know, I know -- they've moved onto the next story. That one was all about creating a distraction before the DNC.)

[zimv20]

i am ****ing furious at this administration. how ****ing stupid do you have to be to blow a deep cover agent for political gain? how far gone is the american public to 1) not understand what this means, and 2) care more about terms like "flip-flopping" than actually bringing down AQ?

[Leo Hubbard]

i am ****ing furious at this administration. how ****ing stupid do you have to be to blow a deep cover agent for political gain? how far gone is the american public to 1) not understand what this means, and 2) care more about terms like "flip-flopping" than actually bringing down AQ?
Apparently they fell out of practice, out intelligent agencies that is. Been awhile I guess since they actually had to work for their paychecks. :confused:

Nevertheless in this forum Bush can't win. People are only looking for more things to slam Bush with.

[skunk]

People are only looking for more things to slam Bush with.
No, Leo, I think they are looking for honest leadership.

[Leo Hubbard]

No, Leo, I think they are looking for honest leadership.
Kerry isn't it.

[themadchemist]

Kerry isn't it.

Better than Bush.

With regard to this spy thing, the Bush administration outs its own spies, let alone those from Pakistan! It's truly the height of stupidity, but I guess relying on the ISI in the first place isn't all that smart either.

After all, the ISI used to prop up the Taliban. Musharraf has reformed them somewhat, but does anyone really believe that it's been completely purged? That organization is still promoting violence in Afghanistan and Kashmir, more likely than not. However, we do have to deal with them and their intelligence is appreciated; it would be nice and smart not to out their spies.

However, all this reliance on Pakistan and ignorance of India makes me nervous...As always under Republican presidents, we snub the world's largest democracy in favor of what is essentially a dictatorship, and that means the U.S. possibly having a hand in disrupting the balance of power in South Asia. That military arms package is not going to help stabilize the region.

[Sayhey]

Damn if they do and Damn if they don't.

In this regard, Leo, you are right. If they don't provide solid evidence they will take heat for playing political games with terror alerts. If they out Intelligence assets to provide that evidence they hurt our ability to get at al Qaeda. What does it tell you about an Administration that choose the second of two bad alternatives? As President, Bush's first job is supposed to be to protect us, not guarantee his reelection. Spend some time thinking about that, Leo, and try not to respond with the first partisan knee jerk answer that comes to mind.

[pseudobrit]

partisan knee jerk answer

Which appears to be the only kind of answer Slyvolhubbard has for us.

No matter what the original subject, it seems tend to flow to John Kerry and why he's scum.

[SPG]

I think we should also point out that the original terra alert as announced by tom ridge was politicized from the word go:
"But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040801.html

This is why the British don't make terror threat announcements unless there is something that specifically can be done. In fact, this is why they have openly criticized the bush administration for making these announcements.
he Home Secretary has warned that American-style openness over the al-Qaeda threat risked exposing politicians to 'ridicule', and dismissed calls for him to supply more details to the British public as 'arrant nonsense'.

In a startling sideswipe at the White House - which put troops around what it said were new targets in New York last week, only for it to emerge that the intelligence underpinning the supposed threat was years old - David Blunkett says he is not prepared to discuss security operations simply to 'feed the news frenzy' in a slow summer.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1278826,00.html