I am really pleased that the Administration wants us to have information..

[kentuck]

...all information, about any possible terrorist attacks, and not doing it just for political reasons. Why would anyone think they would withhold information? Would they withhold information about Mr Bush's discharge from TANG ? Would they withhold information about Mr Cheney's secret energy meetings - which may actually be connected in some manner to the terrorists or the Taliban? Would they withhold info about any medical problems of Mr Bush? Does anyone really think Bush would not withhold any information on his war on terrorists? Does anyone think he is not withholding some information at this very instant? They are not open as they try to suggest. Surely no one is that gullible to believe such baloney??

[Lyagushka]

1. But isn't it rather too convenient ?

Hi people…time for my first post…here goes…*gulp*

There are a few things that don’t add up (in my mind at least) about the recent ‘intelligence breakthrough’ following the arrest of Ghailani. It was reported that his arrest followed a 12 hour gun fight. Given that he was carrying potentially crucial information on his computer- why didn’t he destroy the hard drive to prevent any information being recovered during this time ?

Secondly- had why was none of it encrypted ? At best it might have bought more time, but the data was apparently seized and (presumably) translated in what must be record time.

When Bin Laden was smoked out by the signature of his satellite phone- he stopped using it. Daniel Perle had reported that al Q’aeda had used a network of cybercafes to send email as it made them hard to trace – yet he has 4 years worth of emails and other documents on a laptop and on disk ?

I would also like to know, given the vast funding of the NSA and GCHQ – why have such emails or threats never been intercepted before ?

We know the information may be up to 4 years old and details surveillance that began prior to 911- it might be reasonable to assume that it is either out of date, or may have related to an operation that was subsequently aborted (perhaps in favour of the 911 attack). Was this ‘intelligence’ already known and so could be carefully released so shortly after Kerry’s speech, knowing that it was already irrelevant, but would present Bush in a better light ?

It seems absurd to let prospective terrorist have such an insight into your own counter-terrorist plans like this- unless you already know the threat is largely non-existent ?

I cannot but wonder if there is all something rather to convenient about this ‘breakthrough’. It reminds to much of Blair’s bravado display of force at Heathrow prior to the parliamentary debate on Iraq, when he sent tanks to surround the airport to prevent threats for surface-to-air missiles (as if they would be much deterrent). All image and little substance.

There are just some parts of this story that seem all rather too convenient.

[bobbyboucher]

2. Great post!

Welcome, nice to see that we don't only attract trollers these days.

Keep it coming.

[TNOE]

3. WOW

what a great post!! Sounds like some great detective work on your part.

Welcome to DU :hi: - Really glad you're here!

[kentuck]

4. Welcome Lyagushka!

Excellent comments!

You say: "It seems absurd to let prospective terrorist have such an insight into your own counter-terrorist plans like this- unless you already know the threat is largely non-existent ?"

I have had similar thoughts. It does seem rather convenient, doesn't it??

[Selwynn]

5. Fabulous. :)

[hang a left]

6. Bravo!

And welcome.

[VolcanoJen]

7. According to CNN, Muhammed Noor Khan would quickly delete all files...

... after uploading them, encrypted, to websites. Why did Ghailani keep the files?

The stories seem to contradict each other...

Great first post, Lyagushka!!!

[democrat_patriot]

8. Geat post!

I agree. I have read that <Parphrasing> "Ghaiani may have been the computer 'person' for Al-Qaeda".

And yet he as you so rightly put: "Didn't encrypt anything?"

Now I know with sophisticated equipment (and even electron microscopes) crime labs can 'scour' a hard drive. Even using ranom generated numbers and wiping a drive can leave some traces. But the 3 year old information was too intact.

1. It was useless information, left on some laptop in a corner, that they didn't care if it was found.

2. It was used to alert New York when the target is Los Angeles.

3. They're even lying about getting 3 year old information.

From what I gathered it was only pictures and charts. All of which could be gleaned from the internet. No actual plans for anything.

It was a terror threat about nothing, from 3 year old information about nothing.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi Lyagushka!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lyagushka]

10. Thanks for the welcome everyone

Thank you all for the warm welcome. It is nice to be here among like minded people.

What I found most perplexing about the recent security announcement (apart from the timing) is the absence of any electronic interception of such emails. Given the vast funds available to the intelligence services, it seems more than a little puzzling that so little quality intelligence seems to come by this route. It hardly seems a valid defence not to disclose such intercepts as pretty well everyone knows they are going on (and how our government love to trumpet their ‘high tech’ solutions at the first opportunity). Without wishing to sound too conspiratorial, my only conclusion is either these are little better than ‘white elephants’ or that they are successful in garnering such intelligence but offer little of the glamour of rapid armed responses and dramatic arrests that can be assured of headline news ?

It seems that this information may have come from a series of raids by Pakistani forces from about the middle of June, when they were first engaged in a 4 day battle near South Waziristan (an area favoured by al Q’aeda for its terrorist training camps).

If so, this would point to the even more dramatic timing of the release of such intelligence since it has possibly been known for almost 6 weeks. The New Republic had detailed the pressure being put on Pakistan to deliver ‘High Value Targets’ (HVTs) since May, and linked this with not only granting Pakistan a most favoured non-NATO ally, but also linked to conditions on future arms sales.

The US has failed to condemn the actions of the physicist A .Q .Khan who sold nuclear secrets to Libya, North Korea and Iran (at the last count, two of the famed axis of evil) where as it has banged on incessantly (and incorrectly) about Iraq’s spurious Niger links to obtain Uranium for its non-existent nuclear program.

General Musharraf is clearly caught between a rock and a hard place. The army is largely secular- and he has survived several assassination attempts, yet the intelligence services are know to still maintain links with al Q’aeda. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, criticized the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for both Al Qaeda and the Taliban near the Pakistan/Afghan boarder. But he also has to satisfy his other ‘master’- the US and so has a delicate balancing act to tread. I am sure many in the Pakistan administration would love to see the end of al Q’aeda and its factions, but how far they can go (and more importantly, who they can probably trust) may place limits on what is reasonable for them to achieve.

Pakistan has made commendable achievements in the arrest of several prominent al Q’aeda members recently, but it might also raise the question as to whether we are being ‘fed’ what we want to hear. I have seen several posts here that have documented accounts from 2002 that made the same claims about future attacks on financial organisations in NYC (hardly an unsurprising target in any event) and it may be that what we are being told is ‘new’ is rather old hat and has been known for sometime. So anxious are the Bush administration to champion their war on terror, that they may be more than prepared to re-serve a cold dish of old intelligence as a ‘new and current threat’ and then pat itself on the back for having thwarted such ‘immanent attacks’ when in fact, if we have known of them for the past two years, then it is almost a certainty that so to did al Q’aeda and abandoned them for this same reason. It’s a recipe that cannot fail.

In Bush’s desperation to prove effective in this ‘war’ he my, unwittingly or not’ be prepared to accept any intelligence that may bolster his case (déjà vu anyone ?) and this could be little but a Trojan Horse that terrorists can manipulate to their own advantage. Both the Butler report (here in the UK) and the 911 Commission demonstrated just how weak our own intelligence services have been with respect to Iraq, how much weaker are we when it comes to the hydra that is al Q’aeda ?

But if we needed a more cautionary warning about who we can and cannot trust, Josh Marshall’s recent expose on the sorry Iraq-Niger Uranium fiasco has shown how even our own allies (in this case the Italian Intelligence Services) are more than happy to deal with some shady characters and manipulate intelligence for their own nefarious ends (from Josh’s account, this all began at a time when Iraq was less of a priority on Bush’s radar-of-evil, so it was possibly less a case of planting the forgeries to bolster his own campaign which the vast majority of Italians didn’t support anyway). How much more can we trust another intelligence service with known al Q’aeda links ? It may sound harsh on those who are trying to stamp out terrorists in Pakistan, but that’s the reality of the situation as I see it. The cold war adage ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ may never be less accurate than it is now.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Welcome to DU, Lyagushka

You raise some interesting points.