Loose Lips Sinks ships.

[Stelliform]

I think it is time to lock down all of these leaks. Our government has more leaks than the Titanic. Where are those good ole treason charges when you need them.

CNN article on Government Leak messing up Pakistani informant (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/terror.wrap/index.html)

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.

[zimv20]

does it qualify as a leak? i thought the administration simply confirmed he was undercover, when asked by the press.

[skunk]

does it qualify as a leak? i thought the administration simply confirmed he was undercover, when asked by the press.
"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."

"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."

[zimv20]

yeah, i should've read the article first :(

[Sayhey]

Over at Josh Marshall's (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) site there is a discussion of the latest excuse for the outing of this informant. It seems that Condi Rice is saying they only gave out the information on background.

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.

BLITZER: Had he been flipped, in the vernacular, was he cooperating with Pakistani intelligence after he was arrested?

RICE: I don't know the answer to that question, as to whether or not he was cooperating with them.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/08/le.00.html)

As Marshall points out, background information is used to protect the identity of the person giving the information not to protect the information being leaked. Of interest is the claim, by Rice, that she didn't know whether the Khan was working for the Pakistanis. Is incompetence of a National Security Advisor now a legitimate excuse for hurting national security?

[skunk]

So they are saying that they were giving this information to refute the claims that the upgrade in threat level was for purely political motives. I still think it is inexcusable.
I thought she had more sense...

[Desertrat]

What is ANY administration to do? If they don't talk, in the name of "national security", they're accused of hiding stuff and/or lying. If they say much of anything at all, they're accused of "outing" or some such.

Administrations and the public both want a both-ways deal. Secrecy/security on one hand, in order to achieve national goals, and an open society where everybody knows not just the "what" but the "how".

'Rat

[trebblekicked]

What is ANY administration to do? If they don't talk, in the name of "national security", they're accused of hiding stuff and/or lying. If they say much of anything at all, they're accused of "outing" or some such.

Administrations and the public both want a both-ways deal. Secrecy/security on one hand, in order to achieve national goals, and an open society where everybody knows not just the "what" but the "how".

'Rat

in this case, all they had to do was not name names. i don't see the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here. considering police action and undercover work should be priority one in fighting terrorism, not knowing whether or not someone was turned or working undercover is inexcusable.

[3rdpath]

What is ANY administration to do? If they don't talk, in the name of "national security", they're accused of hiding stuff and/or lying. If they say much of anything at all, they're accused of "outing" or some such.

Administrations and the public both want a both-ways deal. Secrecy/security on one hand, in order to achieve national goals, and an open society where everybody knows not just the "what" but the "how".

'Rat

i don't see it as a balance of information issue...

it's a credibility issue brought about by a steady stream of lies and deception.

we've all read the story about "the boy who cried wolfowitz". ;)

[pseudobrit]

What is ANY administration to do? If they don't talk, in the name of "national security", they're accused of hiding stuff and/or lying. If they say much of anything at all, they're accused of "outing" or some such.

This administration has proven it has no qualms about using the "priveleged information" excuse in cases far less volatile than those central to the war on terror (see Cheney, Dick and Energy policy).