PATH Train Tunnels, Not The Holland Tunnel
It was reported earlier this morning that we had broken up another terrorist plot. The Holland Tunnel was incorrectly identified as being the primary target. Since then that has been corrected, but what galls me the most is that we moved because of a leak; yes, another leak. That comes from Allah Pundit at Hot Air:
Did the Times’s SWIFT expose jeopardize this investigation? A.J. Strata speculated this morning that it did — and according to AmSpec, he might be on to something:
The chat room activity allowed investigators to target several individuals, and at that stage, the DOJ source believes there is a good chance monitoring of certain bank account activity would have taken place…
“People have to understand that sometimes just being able to track these guys for a few weeks not only helps with the specific case, but we pick up on new techniques the bad guys are using. This is particularly true if they don’t think we’re monitoring them. This case appears to be a good example of this,” said our DOJ source…
It is not clear whether this case was one of several our sources claim they discussed in general terms with the New York Times, and which Treasury and Justice told the Times would be endangered if it went public with the SWIFT program. It appears the arrest of the plotter in Lebanon took place before the SWIFT story was leaked.
But another DOJ source added something interesting to the mix: “If you go back and look at some of our more successful anti-terrorism cases, they have focused on taking down entire networks. How do we do that? From the inside, peeling off a lead actor, turning him and using him to keep the plot moving forward so we can trace everyone else, the money, the accounts, the weapons dealers, everyone. I’ll just note that we weren’t able to do that with this case and leave it at that. We could have, but we weren’t able to. You’ll have to do the math for the Times.”
The FBI has since conducted a press briefing about this, and ripped the person who leaked this to the New York Daily News. And while we are very good at taking these cells down, it doesn't help us much when people within the government are openly hostile to our tactics, and leak this information. These dirtbags aren't whistleblowers or lauded heroes like they may be at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times. These people are knowingly, willinly, and purposefully leaking sensitive information to the nation. And while their ideas might simply be that they hate the president enough that they're trying to give him a black eye, they are seriously hurting this nation's efforts.
When the MSM reports a story that has classified material in it, they're not just revealing it to the citizens of the United States, but to the world, as a whole. That means that our allies and our enemies see what we're doing with little obfuscation involved. We do not have a need to know or a right to know. We shouldn't be privy to certain things that the government is doing to protect us. We know that our troops are abroad fighting our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we're also waging a clandestine shadow war against our enemies. That's why we have intelligence agencies and some of the best spec ops guys the world has ever seen. We're going after al Qaeda in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Northern Africa, and Indonesia. We're all over the globe trying to take down these networks and these cells.
Our enemy, while tehcnologically not up to par with us, is hardly stupid. They do know how to fight. They understand tactics better than most, and know how to adapt them. We're not fighting a bunch of backwoods farmers here. These people are sophisticated, and utilize the Internet to communicate in ways that we do. And they're not too open about doing this sort of communication, so we have to send in intel guys to figure out what's going on. Somewhere along the line, we have people who have decided to start giving information to the press.
Suspicions abound as to who might be doing it. We have our own list of suspects, including a couple members of Congress. But, as yet, there is no evidence to back up our bets. Until then, we still have problems, and no clear-cut solution to plugging these leaks up. And we still have a willing press that will print, say, or produce a story revolving around that particular leak. It's time the Bush Administration found its spine, subpoenaed these reporters, and either got their source out of them, or put them in jail. It matters not to us, but we do need to end this sort of behavior from those who think they know better than the people who have the majority of the information. That would be the president and his advisors.
That's not Dan Baquet of the LA Times. That's not Bill Keller, James Risen, or Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times. If they want to be privy to that information, quit your jobs at the cage-liners, and run for office. Until then, report the news as it breaks. Don't become a part of the story like you have so often over these last few months.
Publius II
ADDENDUM:
Marcie points out that they become the story every time they reveal one of these programs when the news comes out that subscribers are leaving them. That, she says, is the only part of the story that concerns them. And she has one simple question for those papers:
"If your subscribers leave you when you pull a bone-headed stunt like this, then why run with the story at all? In the end, the paper must answer to its investors, who are on the board to make money. If those people at the paper sabotage those efforts when they run with stories like the SWIFT and NSA revelations, why is their presence still tolerated?"
It was reported earlier this morning that we had broken up another terrorist plot. The Holland Tunnel was incorrectly identified as being the primary target. Since then that has been corrected, but what galls me the most is that we moved because of a leak; yes, another leak. That comes from Allah Pundit at Hot Air:
Did the Times’s SWIFT expose jeopardize this investigation? A.J. Strata speculated this morning that it did — and according to AmSpec, he might be on to something:
The chat room activity allowed investigators to target several individuals, and at that stage, the DOJ source believes there is a good chance monitoring of certain bank account activity would have taken place…
“People have to understand that sometimes just being able to track these guys for a few weeks not only helps with the specific case, but we pick up on new techniques the bad guys are using. This is particularly true if they don’t think we’re monitoring them. This case appears to be a good example of this,” said our DOJ source…
It is not clear whether this case was one of several our sources claim they discussed in general terms with the New York Times, and which Treasury and Justice told the Times would be endangered if it went public with the SWIFT program. It appears the arrest of the plotter in Lebanon took place before the SWIFT story was leaked.
But another DOJ source added something interesting to the mix: “If you go back and look at some of our more successful anti-terrorism cases, they have focused on taking down entire networks. How do we do that? From the inside, peeling off a lead actor, turning him and using him to keep the plot moving forward so we can trace everyone else, the money, the accounts, the weapons dealers, everyone. I’ll just note that we weren’t able to do that with this case and leave it at that. We could have, but we weren’t able to. You’ll have to do the math for the Times.”
The FBI has since conducted a press briefing about this, and ripped the person who leaked this to the New York Daily News. And while we are very good at taking these cells down, it doesn't help us much when people within the government are openly hostile to our tactics, and leak this information. These dirtbags aren't whistleblowers or lauded heroes like they may be at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times. These people are knowingly, willinly, and purposefully leaking sensitive information to the nation. And while their ideas might simply be that they hate the president enough that they're trying to give him a black eye, they are seriously hurting this nation's efforts.
When the MSM reports a story that has classified material in it, they're not just revealing it to the citizens of the United States, but to the world, as a whole. That means that our allies and our enemies see what we're doing with little obfuscation involved. We do not have a need to know or a right to know. We shouldn't be privy to certain things that the government is doing to protect us. We know that our troops are abroad fighting our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we're also waging a clandestine shadow war against our enemies. That's why we have intelligence agencies and some of the best spec ops guys the world has ever seen. We're going after al Qaeda in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Northern Africa, and Indonesia. We're all over the globe trying to take down these networks and these cells.
Our enemy, while tehcnologically not up to par with us, is hardly stupid. They do know how to fight. They understand tactics better than most, and know how to adapt them. We're not fighting a bunch of backwoods farmers here. These people are sophisticated, and utilize the Internet to communicate in ways that we do. And they're not too open about doing this sort of communication, so we have to send in intel guys to figure out what's going on. Somewhere along the line, we have people who have decided to start giving information to the press.
Suspicions abound as to who might be doing it. We have our own list of suspects, including a couple members of Congress. But, as yet, there is no evidence to back up our bets. Until then, we still have problems, and no clear-cut solution to plugging these leaks up. And we still have a willing press that will print, say, or produce a story revolving around that particular leak. It's time the Bush Administration found its spine, subpoenaed these reporters, and either got their source out of them, or put them in jail. It matters not to us, but we do need to end this sort of behavior from those who think they know better than the people who have the majority of the information. That would be the president and his advisors.
That's not Dan Baquet of the LA Times. That's not Bill Keller, James Risen, or Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times. If they want to be privy to that information, quit your jobs at the cage-liners, and run for office. Until then, report the news as it breaks. Don't become a part of the story like you have so often over these last few months.
Publius II
ADDENDUM:
Marcie points out that they become the story every time they reveal one of these programs when the news comes out that subscribers are leaving them. That, she says, is the only part of the story that concerns them. And she has one simple question for those papers:
"If your subscribers leave you when you pull a bone-headed stunt like this, then why run with the story at all? In the end, the paper must answer to its investors, who are on the board to make money. If those people at the paper sabotage those efforts when they run with stories like the SWIFT and NSA revelations, why is their presence still tolerated?"
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:14 PM
1 Comments:
Most terrorists leaders are well educated, many speaking more than one language. The are street smart. They know the territory. They aren't naive. We must never under estimate their guile and cunning. Those that are driven by jihad has their Allah on their side. They are the most irrational and dangerous in my humble opinion. Every time a leak of our methods and ongoing intelligence is leaked, our enemy takes advantage of it in more ways than one. These leaks must stop. Our Attorney General must act. Rawriter.
Post a Comment
<< Home