As if.
The New York Daily News reports, "British and Pakistani intelligence officials are furious" with the Bush administration "for unmasking their super spy - apparently to justify the orange alert - and for naming the other captured terrorist suspects."
...The Bush administration's deliberate disclosure of Khan's name directly violated the Justice Department's own stated position on such matters. In the Supreme Court case in which the department tried to keep detainee names secret, its top terrorism prosecutor filed an affidavit outlining the administration's opposition to such disclosure. In the affidavit, the administration said disclosing names of those "who may be revealed to have knowledge of or a connection to terrorism could lead to the public identification of individuals associated with them" and that "divulging the detainees' identities may deter them from cooperating with the Department of Justice." The affidavit also said such disclosures "could allow terrorist organizations and others to interfere with the pending proceedings by creating false or misleading evidence."
Source: Progress Report
...The Bush administration's deliberate disclosure of Khan's name directly violated the Justice Department's own stated position on such matters. In the Supreme Court case in which the department tried to keep detainee names secret, its top terrorism prosecutor filed an affidavit outlining the administration's opposition to such disclosure. In the affidavit, the administration said disclosing names of those "who may be revealed to have knowledge of or a connection to terrorism could lead to the public identification of individuals associated with them" and that "divulging the detainees' identities may deter them from cooperating with the Department of Justice." The affidavit also said such disclosures "could allow terrorist organizations and others to interfere with the pending proceedings by creating false or misleading evidence."
I don't think it was exactly to justify the orange alert. Except as the orange alert was used for a campaign political ploy. I'd like to think it was only that. But that seems a little naive at this point.
Lies, lies, lies. All kinds of illegal activity. Even activity putting the nation's security at risk. And no one to stop them.
Their coup d'etat has been a grand success so far. Don't expect them to stop on their own.
Tim Ripley, security expert for Jane's Defense publications, said, "The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse. 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 [and] counter-terrorism." Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, commented that allowing Khan's name to become public was "very unclever" and said "it's another debacle."
I'm inclined to lean more in Mr. Ripley's direction. How many "stupid" acts can they pull before it starts to look like something less than ineptitude or campaign dirty tricks? They've got quite a list going.
"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defence 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-terror-ism, 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?"
A source such as Khan - co-operating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents - would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.
"Running agents within a terrorist organisation is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."
New Zealand Herald article
"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-terror-ism, 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?"
A source such as Khan - co-operating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents - would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.
"Running agents within a terrorist organisation is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!