TA-ANALYSIS: NY Times Blows Cover of Al Qaeda Mole

The "treasure trove of intelligence" that has recently led to numerous arrests in Great Britain was provided by an al Qaeda member working for the Pakistani Intelligence Service. Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan had been arrested secretly in early July and had remained in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents until his name appeared in the New York times as the source of the bulk of information justifying the elevated terror alert in the United States.





[edit on 8-7-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by Valhall]

This was reported yesterday.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course NY times reported the identity of the mole...can they be anymore anti bush. They wrote more columns about Farenhight 911 than any other this year and they blame Bush for everything. They are the Al qazera of the US.

Bill O'Reilly will have a field day with this one.

"LONDON (Reuters) - The revelation that a mole within al Qaeda was exposed after Washington launched its "orange alert" this month has shocked security experts, who say the outing of the source may have set back the war on terror."

Yeah... more of a coverup blunder than a security blunder.

The FBI should arrest those involved for treason against the United States. There is no excuse for this. This goes beyond the freedom of the press. They have no right to expose moles.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by TexasConspiracyNut]

He wasn't a "mole". He was captured and decided to cooperate and continue to send e-mails. The current administration was rushed, or pressured, to show they were making a dent on terror.

What is the difference in cooperation between a mole and an undercover cooperator?

I dont think it matters at all whether or not the technical term you call Khan is.

And no the FBI shouldn't arrest those involved for delivering the news. And if such an event happened, I'd be damned if there wasn't a protest against the FBI.

A person who delivers information to the public is not guilty of treason. I find that comment rediculous.

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
The FBI should arrest those involved for treason against the United States. There is no excuse for this. This goes beyond the freedom of the press. They have no right to expose moles.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by TexasConspiracyNut]

Why hasn't the Bush administration handed over whoever who blew the cover of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative who was looking for WMDS?

Originally posted by DetectivePerez
What is the difference in cooperation between a mole and an undercover cooperator?

I dont think it matters at all whether or not the technical term you call Khan is.

And no the FBI shouldn't arrest those involved for delivering the news. And if such an event happened, I'd be damned if there wasn't a protest against the FBI.

A person who delivers information to the public is not guilty of treason. I find that comment rediculous.

A mole is someone who penetrates the orginization without being captured. It does matter what you call them because if it was a mole, then the US would have jeopardized an undercover operation. The fact that he was captured and decided to cooperate leads me to believe that the Pakistanis did not divulge this information.

I agree, no one should be arrested. I do, however, believe we should give the current administration some slack so they do not feel pressured to release such information prematurely.

I still stand by my first post. I think the freedom of the press is the main thing that holds this country together. I thank God for it even though I dont believe in Him. I think what this country stands for is something that to me is very important

If you think it is OK to allow the press to give out information that puts the US forces in harms way even though the Constitution allows it then you are nothing more than trash in my book and to hell with you!

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
I still stand by my first post. I think the freedom of the press is the main thing that holds this country together. I thank God for it even though I dont believe in Him. I think what this country stands for is something that to me is very important

If you think it is OK to allow the press to give out information that puts the US forces in harms way even though the Constitution allows it then you are nothing more than trash in my book and to hell with you!

Isn't this a contradictory statement? First you say, "I think the freedom of the press is the main thing that holds this country together."

Then you say, "If you think it is OK to allow the press to give out information that puts the US forces in harms way even though the Constitution allows it then you are nothing more than trash in my book and to hell with you!"

Which is it?

No.

Thank you for catching on. It was obvious.

It was based on all the past post by me.

The freedom of the press is THE number one thing this country stands for.

When that involves helping the enemy then it is treason.

So what is it, freedom, or treason?

from DetectivePerez
A person who delivers information to the public is not guilty of treason. I find that comment rediculous.

That is a very irresponsible statement. I could give you dozens of examples where that attitude would get many innocents killed. I find it hard to believe that you would stand by such a blanket statement of foolishness.

from TexasConspiracyNut
If you think it is OK to allow the press to give out information that puts the US forces in harms way even though the Constitution allows it then you are nothing more than trash in my book and to hell with you!

Bravo, man. I'm with you 100% on that.

Originally posted by curme
Why hasn't the Bush administration handed over whoever who blew the cover of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative who was looking for WMDS?

Or better yet, the moronic member of Congress who tipped off the press that the NSA was monitoring Bin Laden's sat. phone communications. Little bugger never used a satellite phone again. That traitor should have been outed and shot.

FREEDOM!

Why are you so hung up on figuring that out?

No disrespect intended!

A person who delivers information to the public is not guilty of treason. I find that comment rediculous.

This is BS. The info that was made public concerns our national security and tipped off the enemy about our activities. I agree the person or persons who published this in the NY times should be shot for treason. They could have asked the government before writing the story on their newspaper. It is sad what has happened people put getting more readers and press before national security, this is unacceptable those people should be held accountable