| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Decoding the threat ... here's why the war on terrorism may have just taken a big turn |
| 2004-08-10 |
| ELF - Here's an interesting bit from the middle: Khan's cooperation with investigators, plus his extensive record of communications, led to yet another break. Ahmed the Tanzanian's real name is Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, and investigators say he was the man who purchased the truck that was used in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, back in 1998. Twelve days after Khan's arrest, on July 25, Ghailani was seized in the Pakistani city of Gurjat, and investigators took possession of a laptop computer that contained on its hard drive maps and messages detailing surveillance information about several of the five sites in New York, Newark, and Washington that federal officials rushed to protect. The information, investigators say, all dated back to before the September 11 attacks. But the real bonanza was the information investigators could now cross-reference from Khan's and Ghailani's computers, and from cellphones evidently taken from the two men. Comparing these data against electronically intercepted information by the Pentagon's supersecret Echelon computer yielded an even bigger bonanza. Khan's arrest led to six phone numbers for locations in the United States, investigators said, declining to specify the locations. Many other numbers obtained from the two men had already been collected in Echelon's enormous database, and investigators are working now to re-examine several cryptic and coded conversations in light of the new information to identify new potential threats. The Echelon data, one intelligence official says, are so good, "it's as good as being there." Big fish. Sharing that kind of intelligence in real time with America's partners in the war on terrorism is also a relatively new development, and it's paying some handsome dividends. On August 3, British authorities arrested perhaps the most important al Qaeda member since Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The Brits, evidently, had had Abu Issa al-Hindi under surveillance when the CIA, working with the information from Ghailani's computer, forwarded it to its British counterpart. Hindi, the officials said, had played a critical role in the gathering of surveillance information on the five financial sites in the United States, and may have authored some or all of the documents found on the seized computer. Today, there is no sign that the hemorrhaging of al Qaeda is about to end. Worth reading the whole article |
| Posted by:Spot |
| #27 |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-08-10 20:12 |
| #26 As for WW2, at least some Repubs opposed Lend Lease to the USSR, and pushed for more effort in the Pacific and less in Europe, and shifts in command in China (Chennault vs Stillwell) and the Pacific (more power to MacArthur). None of that compares to the Democrat actions of today. RC - I fail to see why not - they were very significant issues. AK - theres a bunch of pretty extreme people on this site. The good owners and major contributors run a site on intel and strategy in the WOT - this seems to inevitably attract a certain element. Whats the point of feeding them?? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-10 17:34 |
| #25 "It's Rantburg Republicans that I've heard arguing in favour of launching a new civil war in America to break away the Republican states in the case the Democrats wins." Um, yeah. Sure, Aris, sure. Feel free to pretend that it didn't happen. Where have I ever said that? Hmmm? I'm pretty damned sure I haven't Also feel free to pretend that I ever said it was you who said it, rather than Rantburg Republicans in general. , and I don't see why you keep trying to make ME answer for what other people say. And lastly, pretend that my comment wasn't a direct response to you about how it's not only Democrats that feel the elections are more important than the war, but Republicans also. I have no use for your dishonest rhetorical tactics, Robert. What you are responsible for is only your own ad hominem commentary -- e.g. saying "pay attention for starters" because I actually notice *more* stuff than you myopically do (and I don't choose to forget them either), or you calling me an idiot because I don't agree with you. Not to mention the times you've called me a liar, because I held a different opinion. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-08-10 16:25 |
| #24 LH: im not sure id go as far as to say the Dems burned khan Why not? They whined about the "old information" and forced the administration into revealing more. Since there are Donks on the various Congressional committees, there's certainly ways for them to get the background info and then reassure the rest of their party. But, no, the Democrats -- and their sycophants in the press -- decided that scoring a few political points was more important. So they screamed about "old information" and groused about "politicizing terror", and made it clear they had NO intention of being responsible adults. Be honest -- if the administration had responded to the whining with, "releasing any more information would put lives and operations at risk", do you think the whining would have stopped, or just gotten louder? I vote for "louder" -- and add "shriller". As for WW2, at least some Repubs opposed Lend Lease to the USSR, and pushed for more effort in the Pacific and less in Europe, and shifts in command in China (Chennault vs Stillwell) and the Pacific (more power to MacArthur). None of that compares to the Democrat actions of today. Aris: Ooh, what a nice idea. And *next* week, why not hand over nuclear weapons to Iran just so that people take the Iranian threat seriously? That's Kerry's plan, Aris, though I doubt he has any intention of taking the threat seriously. It's Rantburg Republicans that I've heard arguing in favour of launching a new civil war in America to break away the Republican states in the case the Democrats wins. Um, yeah. Sure, Aris, sure. Where have I ever said that? Hmmm? I'm pretty damned sure I haven't, and I don't see why you keep trying to make ME answer for what other people say. Or can I start taking you to task for what others say? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-10 16:11 |
| #23 What is telling is that "Kerry" is keeping his trap shut. He apperently now is getting breifings. Take this for what you will but if this is "political" he would be on it like flys on crap. I am guessing it's something else. It may be purposeful misdirection. Spys do that. I'll wait for Old Spook's input, thankyouverymuch. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-08-10 16:04 |
| #22 If history is any guide, what we know from public reporting is just the tip of the iceberg in this story. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-08-10 15:44 |
| #21 What is telling is that "Kerry" is keeping his trap shut. He apperently now is getting breifings. Take this for what you will but if this is "political" he would be on it like flys on crap. I am guessing it's something else. It may be purposeful misdirection. Spys do that. |
| Posted by: FlameBait93268 2004-08-10 15:01 |
| #20 5/10 years from now we will all be watching a documentary on this on the history channel |
| Posted by: Dcreeper 2004-08-10 14:58 |
| #19 If the administration "blew" Khan's cover, it's because they HAD to to get people to take their warnings seriously. Ooh, what a nice idea. And *next* week, why not hand over nuclear weapons to Iran just so that people take the Iranian threat seriously? As for Aris -- idiot. The party that thinks the election is more important than the war is the Democrats. Pay attention for a change. It's Rantburg Republicans that I've heard arguing in favour of launching a new civil war in America to break away the Republican states in the case the Democrats wins. What's inconvenient to you, both in this thread and previous ones, is that I pay too *much* attention to what's being said and argued. And I've seen no difference whatsoever between Republican and Democrat fanatics in the way that *both* of them think that the elections are more important than the war. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-08-10 13:47 |
| #18 Hold on a second, wasn't it a Foreign Intelligence of the Pakistani government that first confirmed the capture? Or am I thinking of someone else? |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-08-10 13:41 |
| #17 RC - im not sure id go as far as to say the Dems burned khan - first because im not sure the whole story is true - see the comments on the 1000 disks thread - this may well be something else entirely - and cause Im not completely happy with that blameshifting either - the admin is still responsible for its own actions - i just had a particular problem with a TNR blog going after them, without even hinting that TNRs own article had pushed the bushies into it. As for WW2, at least some Repubs opposed Lend Lease to the USSR, and pushed for more effort in the Pacific and less in Europe, and shifts in command in China (Chennault vs Stillwell) and the Pacific (more power to MacArthur). So yeah, wars been political for a long time. And of course the Bushies have launched a hueg tax cut in wartime, unprecedented in US history, giving up money that could be used for everything from homeland security to more army divisions. I suppose one could say that winning reelection is worth it, since a Dem victory would hurt the WOT more. Similarly a Dem could say that Kerry would be so much better, it justifies playing politics with the WOT. Frankly I dont like EITHER logic, and thats why im not pleased at the choice Ive got. So, should I write in Leiberman, McCain, or :) Tony Blair? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-10 13:32 |
| #16 If the administration "blew" Khan's cover, it's because they HAD to to get people to take their warnings seriously. Anyone else remember the idiot Democrats whining about the latest terror warnings? Anyone else remember that the info related to Khan came out as an answer to that whining? The Donks burnt Khan by trying to score political points; their behavior is why, in the past, "politics stops at the waters edge". Yeah, I know there's an election on, but we had elections during WWII and I'm pretty damned sure the Republicans didn't play games like this. If they had, we'd still be hearing about it. It's nice to hear LH is on the same page here. The Democrats have been utterly worthless on terror, and this is just another example. As for Aris -- idiot. The party that thinks the election is more important than the war is the Democrats. Pay attention for a change. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-08-10 13:21 |
| #15 "you believe the Pakis about Khan? The Pakis?" I don't believe anyone unquestioningly, which is the reason I used the words "If true". |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-08-10 13:04 |
| #14 Aris, your bias is showing. A bit too early to jump on the Bushies blew it bandwagon. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-08-10 13:02 |
| #13 Need more info. Did US Officials know that Khan was turned and used by Pakistan intelligence to go after other Al Qaeda's? How are the Pakistani's in allowing CIA/FBI interrogate Al Qaeda Captures? Anything like Saudi Arabia? It's funny watching the progression of this story. Alerts Alerts used for Politics Alerts really based on lots of detailed intelligence Arresting a lot of Al Qaeda across the World Bush officials out a mole (Khan) for politics. Can't wait for the next machination. |
| Posted by: danking70 2004-08-10 12:59 |
| #12 At the risk of getting on Aris' Christmas card list, I'll repeat what I said on another post--you believe the Pakis about Khan? The Pakis? Once again, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Old, slow intelligence involved watching the source until it disappeared--never tip your hand. What we know now is that Intel comes from kicking down doors, quickly evaluating what you've gathered, and using it to figure out the next door to kick down before the enemy has the time to react. If Khan was such a disastrous "leak," how is it that we're still kicking down door after door and gathering up bad guys with eyes like a deer's in the headlights? Keep 'em running, keep 'em guessing, keep 'em scared. They can't hurt us much that way. |
| Posted by: longtime lurker 2004-08-10 12:46 |
| #11 "but that the BUSHIES blew it." If true, there's no comment of sufficient magnitude to reply to such an action of either extreme stupidity or extreme *treason*. Perhaps they thought that winning the November elections is much more important that having a hope of winning the war on Terror. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-08-10 12:27 |
| #10 That's what so interesting and frustrating about Intel and Counter-Intel... You never know if your discoveries are the truth... or if you're being played. Gigantic...Cerebral game.. of cat and mouse. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-08-10 12:04 |
| #9 interesting DB, though thats different from the TNR story. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-10 11:29 |
| #8 Khhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: someone 2004-08-10 11:21 |
| #7 checked it. Not so much that khan was a double agent prior to capture, but that SUBSEQUENT to capture the Paks had him sending emails to other AQs without those AQ's knowledge. This according to Paki Interior Minister, was blown by the US ANNOUNCING his arrest. Not that the arrest blew him, or that the Pakis blew it, but that the BUSHIES blew it. Which is something else again, IF true - Im not sure how much to go with Hayat on this - he has every incentive to maximize the value of what Pakland did. In any case something strikes me as nasty about Spencer citing this as an example of a Bush foul up, when it was his own pals (the Anti bush foreign policy faction within TNR) who have been pushing the line that the Orange alert and the Ghailani capture was a political ploy to divert attention from Kerrys address at the Dem Convention. Now Im not the first to stand up for Bush, and I like TNR, but it seems to me that John Judis and company virtually forced the Bushies to reveal the circumstances of the Ghailani arrest and the rationale behind the alert - then attacking that revelation is just dirty pool. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-10 11:20 |
| #6 Yesterday on FOX a former CIA (insert grain of salt) was interviewed and said Khan's handlers felt he was on the brink of being compromised and the arrest was the only way to protect him. They didn't want him killed by Al Queda. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-08-10 11:17 |
| #5 thats Spencer Ackerman, no? He has an ax to grind on Iraq war and the Admin (which would fit in with dissing Pakistani cooperation). Though i note same item is mentioned in NYT piece Dan quoted elsewhere here. Worth noting, MHW, but I'll take the speculation as just that for now, though i may check the TNR piece - usually ive avoided Iraqd, as its not particularly insiteful on the situation IN Iraq. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-10 10:49 |
| #4 LH, http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1912 |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-08-10 10:44 |
| #3 source, MHW? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-08-10 10:26 |
| #2 The commonality of phone numbers across three discrete data sources is encouraging. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-08-10 10:24 |
| #1 other people are speculating that Khan was a double agent and his arrest blew it |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-08-10 09:06 |