Apparent WH leak destroys another GWoT intelligence asset

[patteeu]

This is one area where I'm not very happy with the Bush administration. They have done little to stop these damaging leaks or punish those responsible. I don't want to hear about the Plame leak, I'm talking about leaks that even Bush administration supporters would agree have had a net damaging impact on our ability to fight the GWoT. They need to find the people with loose lips and, where it makes sense, crucify them.

Qaeda Goes Dark After a U.S. Slip (http://www.nysun.com/article/64163)

Enemy Vanishes From Its Web Sites

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy's system.

The intelligence blunder started with what appeared at the time as an American intelligence victory, namely that the federal government had intercepted, a full four days before it was to be aired, a video of Osama bin Laden's first appearance in three years in a video address marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 7, the Web site of ABC News posted excerpts from the speech.

But the disclosure from ABC and later other news organizations tipped off Qaeda's internal security division that the organization's Internet communications system, known among American intelligence analysts as Obelisk, was compromised. This network of Web sites serves not only as the distribution system for the videos produced by Al Qaeda's production company, As-Sahab, but also as the equivalent of a corporate intranet, dealing with such mundane matters as expense reporting and clerical memos to mid- and lower-level Qaeda operatives throughout the world.

While intranets are usually based on servers in a discrete physical location, Obelisk is a series of sites all over the Web, often with fake names, in some cases sites that are not even known by their proprietors to have been hacked by Al Qaeda.

One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system. America's Obelisk watchers even saw the order to shut down the system delivered from Qaeda's internal security to a team of technical workers in Malaysia. That was the last internal message America's intelligence community saw. "We saw the whole thing shut down because of this leak," the official said. "We lost an important keyhole into the enemy."

By Friday evening, one of the key sets of sites in the Obelisk network, the Ekhlaas forum, was back on line. The Ekhlaas forum is a password-protected message board used by Qaeda for recruitment, propaganda dissemination, and as one of the entrance ways into Obelisk for those operatives whose user names are granted permission. Many of the other Obelisk sites are now offline and presumably moved to new secret locations on the World Wide Web.

The founder of a Web site known as clandestineradio.com, Nick Grace, tracked the shutdown of Qaeda's Obelisk system in real time. "It was both unprecedented and chilling from the perspective of a Web techie. The discipline and coordination to take the entire system down involving multiple Web servers, hundreds of user names and passwords, is an astounding feat, especially that it was done within minutes," Mr. Grace said yesterday.

The head of the SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that monitors Jihadi Web sites and provides information to subscribers, Rita Katz, said she personally provided the video on September 7 to the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter.

Ms. Katz yesterday said, "We shared a copy of the transcript and the video with the U.S. government, to Michael Leiter, with the request specifically that it was important to keep the subject secret. Then the video was leaked out. An investigation into who downloaded the video from our server indicated that several computers with IP addresses were registered to government agencies."

Yesterday a spokesman for the National Counterterrorism Center, Carl Kropf, denied the accusation that it was responsible for the leak. "That's just absolutely wrong. The allegation and the accusation that we did that is unfounded," he said. The spokesman for the director of national intelligence, Ross Feinstein, yesterday also denied the leak allegation. "The intelligence community and the ODNI senior leadership did not leak this video to the media," he said.

Ms. Katz said, "The government leak damaged our investigation into Al Qaeda's network. Techniques and sources that took years to develop became ineffective. As a result of the leak Al Qaeda changed their methods." Ms. Katz said she also lost potential revenue.

A former counterterrorism official, Roger Cressey, said, "If any of this was leaked for any reasons, especially political, that is just unconscionable." Mr. Cressey added that the work that was lost by burrowing into Qaeda's Internet system was far more valuable than any benefit that was gained by short-circuiting Osama bin Laden's video to the public.

While Al Qaeda still uses human couriers to move its most important messages between senior leaders and what is known as a Hawala network of lenders throughout the world to move interest-free money, more and more of the organization's communication happens in cyber space.

"While the traditional courier based networks can offer security and anonymity, the same can be had on the Internet. It is clear in recent years if you look at their information operations and explosion of Al Qaeda related Web sites and Web activities, the Internet has taken a primary role in their communications both externally and internally," Mr. Grace said.

[jAZ]

I don't want to hear about the Plame leak, I'm talking about leaks that even Bush administration supporters would agree have had a net damaging impact on our ability to fight the GWoT.
Justifiable criticism is now officially limited to only those things that "Bush administration supporters would agree" with, in patteeu's mind.

ROFL

[Amnorix]

First, this administration has been unusually free from internal leaks, compared to past administrations. I'm not talking about the millions of government agencies as a whole, I mean the White House and its staff. Why? Because Bush values loyalty and silence above everything else, including wisdom and knowledge.

Second, THIS leak does appear to represent somethign that was very much counter to America's best interests, and the source of the leak should be plugged with relatively extreme prejudice.

Third, IMHO, the media showed an appalling lack of self-control in releasing this. Not surprising, but still noteworthy. I sometimes wonder if they care about ANYTHING other than ratings and scoops.

[Amnorix]

Justifiable criticism is now officially limited to only those things that "Bush administration supporters would agree" with, in patteeu's mind.

ROFL

I'm assuming that's a typo on Patteeu's part, since given the syntax it makes no sense.

[patteeu]

First, this administration has been unusually free from internal leaks, compared to past administrations. I'm not talking about the millions of government agencies as a whole, I mean the White House and its staff. Why? Because Bush values loyalty and silence above everything else, including wisdom and knowledge.

Second, THIS leak does appear to represent somethign that was very much counter to America's best interests, and the source of the leak should be plugged with relatively extreme prejudice.

Third, IMHO, the media showed an appalling lack of self-control in releasing this. Not surprising, but still noteworthy. I sometimes wonder if they care about ANYTHING other than ratings and scoops.

Given the supposed secrecy of this administration, there have been a surprisingly large number of damaging leaks related to the GWoT and a disappointing silence about measures to stop and punish those responsible. Maybe something's being done behind the scenes, but the silence and the continuation of the problem aren't very comforting.

I'm not so quick to blame the media on this one. Unlike some of the other leaks (e.g. black prisons, interrogation techniques, etc), I'm not sure it was obvious to the media that this was a sensitive thing to release. The content itself doesn't give away the sensitivity of the disclosure. Now if they were aware that an early release would put our collection ability at risk, then I'm with you 100%.

[patteeu]

I'm assuming that's a typo on Patteeu's part, since given the syntax it makes no sense.

I recognized that morons like jAZ were likely to try to turn this thread into a Plame/Libby commutation thread and I'm really not interested in that kind of diversion.

jAZ's interpretation of what I wrote didn't make any sense to me so if you see the same thing in my post that he seems to see then I guess I was unclear.

[memyselfI]

You forgot OOOPs.

[StcChief]

First, this administration has been unusually free from internal leaks, compared to past administrations. I'm not talking about the millions of government agencies as a whole, I mean the White House and its staff. Why? Because Bush values loyalty and silence above everything else, including wisdom and knowledge.

Second, THIS leak does appear to represent somethign that was very much counter to America's best interests, and the source of the leak should be plugged with relatively extreme prejudice.

Third, IMHO, the media showed an appalling lack of self-control in releasing this. Not surprising, but still noteworthy. I sometimes wonder if they care about ANYTHING other than ratings and scoops. since it's all about ratings and money who cares about America.... it's just a place to make money. and keep or stockholders happy.

[BucEyedPea]

Sometimes leaks are approved by an administration without anyone knowing that as a part of strategy. Maybe this was one promoting gains on AQ for election purposes. One NEVER knows.

[patteeu]

Sometimes leaks are approved by an administration without anyone knowing that as a part of strategy. Maybe this was one promoting gains on AQ for election purposes. One NEVER knows.

True. My criticism would stand if that were the reason for an approved leak, although I'd have to wonder what election they were trying to manipulate at this time. OTOH, if the leak were approved as a part of a strategy to gain advantage against al Qaeda, I'd withdraw my criticism on this particular leak (but not on the other leaks that have appeared in the pages of the NYTimes over the past few years).

[SBK]

True. My criticism would stand if that were the reason for an approved leak, although I'd have to wonder what election they were trying to manipulate at this time. OTOH, if the leak were approved as a part of a strategy to gain advantage against al Qaeda, I'd withdraw my criticism on this particular leak (but not on the other leaks that have appeared in the pages of the NYTimes over the past few years).

Anytime you put the security of the American people below political points for an election you've made the wrong decision.

Not that you're saying that's what happened, I hate watching anybody play the political games and putting the citizens and soldiers at risk for personal gain.

[Radar Chief]

Interesting developments on this subject.

October 09, 2007
Uh, About that "Leak" That Burned Our al Qaeda Intel
I know what the NY Sun and Washington Post are saying about a major source of intel being burned by a leak (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/09/report-feds-leak-of-osama-video-destroyed-surveillance-of-aq-internet-ops/), but it just isn't so. Rita Katz and the SITE Institute do a great job, but attributing the interception of this video to them is just false. Sure, they intercepted the video--as did Laura Mansfield and other groups that do similar work as SITE, but let's check the claim out.

WaPo: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817_pf.html)

at 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, [SITE] notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition.

And in the Sun article (http://www.nysun.com/article/64163?page_no=2):
Rita Katz, said she personally provided the video on September 7 to the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter.

So, SITE claims they are the source of the video given to the White House. Rita claims she personally gave the video to authorities on September 7th. But let's take a quick look at the very bottom of the translation of the video leaked by ABC's Blotter (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf):

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/bin_landen_transcript_date.gif

That means that the White House had a translation of the video a full 24 hours before SITE intercepted it. Apparently, our intel guys are better than we thought.
Sure, the fools over at al Ekhlaas have closed down their back room, but that doesn't mean there aren't other back rooms.
So, just because SITE's intel source got burned, doesn't mean that we've lost capability of tracking al Qaeda online. In fact, SITE was not the only one that had the "new" bin Laden 9/11 video before it was supposed to be released, as these two articles suggest.
Both Intel Center and Laura Mansfield (http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/default.asp) also had the video. Hell, I had the video (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189302.php).
So, sorry to hear that SITE has lost its edge. And it really sucks that it was someone at The White House who leaked the video.
But why would you give the video to the White House and not to the FBI or CIA? The White House leaks like a sieve. That's just the way the White House works.
I'm also sorry to hear that this scared al Qaeda into being more cautious. In fact, that same day al Ekhlaas and a few other jihadi forums went down. There was a lot of speculation as to why. Some at the time claimed that the online Zionist conspiracy had hacked al Ekhlaas. But now we know why they went down: to upgrade their security measures.
But no matter how hard they try, they will never be as good as we are.
We pwn you al Qaeda and as Sahab. We. Frickin. Pwn. You.
Mwuahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!
UPDATE: Cass, blogging over at MilBlogs (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/archives/2007/10/10/#009477), finds more evidence showing that the timeline presented in the above articles is off. Even suggesting that it was someone at SITE who leaked it, not the White House.
H/T: Mrs. Greyhawk


Edited to add links.

[BucEyedPea]

True. My criticism would stand if that were the reason for an approved leak, although I'd have to wonder what election they were trying to manipulate at this time. OTOH, if the leak were approved as a part of a strategy to gain advantage against al Qaeda, I'd withdraw my criticism on this particular leak (but not on the other leaks that have appeared in the pages of the NYTimes over the past few years).
First off, I didn't use the word "manipulate" I said to promote gains on AQ. I consider this altering my communication to worsen it. If I have to tell you what election they may be trying to have an effect on ( such as success in the WoT) then that's says all.

[Amnorix]

I'm not so quick to blame the media on this one. Unlike some of the other leaks (e.g. black prisons, interrogation techniques, etc), I'm not sure it was obvious to the media that this was a sensitive thing to release. The content itself doesn't give away the sensitivity of the disclosure. Now if they were aware that an early release would put our collection ability at risk, then I'm with you 100%.That's a fair point. It wouldn't be obvious on its face that this was sensitive.

[Amnorix]

I recognized that morons like jAZ were likely to try to turn this thread into a Plame/Libby commutation thread and I'm really not interested in that kind of diversion.

jAZ's interpretation of what I wrote didn't make any sense to me so if you see the same thing in my post that he seems to see then I guess I was unclear.


Oh I get it. Bush Administration critics will overhype a "leak" which isn't really damaging to try to conduct a witch hunt. That is your side's view of the Plame affair. That's why you then said that even BushCo supporters would agree that it's a bad leak.

I didn't quite follow that in the first instance. I get it now.

[Amnorix]

since it's all about ratings and money who cares about America.... it's just a place to make money. and keep or stockholders happy.

I actually have a very limited concept of corporate social consciousness. They DO exist to make money for their owners, after all.

But even I'm unthrilled at a total lack of responsibility in a matter such as this, subject to Pat's piont that maybe they didn't realize the significance fo the release.

[Amnorix]

Interesting developments on this subject.



Edited to add links.

Interesting. As usual, nothing is nearly as simple as it appears.

[Radar Chief]

Interesting. As usual, nothing is nearly as simple as it appears.

That’s exactly why I try not to “knee jerk” react to these types of things.
If you’re interested, I just edited in a Hot Air blog link that has a bit more detail on the subject.

[patteeu]

First off, I didn't use the word "manipulate" I said to promote gains on AQ. I consider this altering my communication to worsen it. If I have to tell you what election they may be trying to have an effect on ( such as success in the WoT) then that's says all.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "for election purposes" since there isn't a significant election any time soon. You did say "for election purposes" didn't you? :shrug:

[patteeu]

Interesting developments on this subject.



Edited to add links.

Very interesting. Thanks for the contribution, as always.

[BucEyedPea]

Maybe, you have your head in the sand pat or are you yanking my chain, but there is an election process going on currently, even if to early. Any success regarding AQ would help the GOP. Pretty obvious.

[patteeu]

Maybe, you have your head in the sand pat or are you yanking my chain, but there is an election process going on currently, even if to early. Any success regarding AQ would help the GOP. Pretty obvious.

Nothing that happens today that doesn't persist until the elections will have any impact on the elections. This is not the kind of leak that anyone would orchestrate for the purpose of affecting an election unless it was done within days of that election.

[BucEyedPea]

They could leak it to create a more favorable view on what the administration is doing regarding AQ...and that indirectly can have some impact since it's one criticism on this administration that they have no interest in AQ. JMO since we don't know if they did leak it officially.

[jAZ]

Sometimes leaks are approved by an administration without anyone knowing that as a part of strategy. Maybe this was one promoting gains on AQ for election purposes. One NEVER knows.
The video came out just before Patreaus' testimony before congress. They tweak the fear buttons for political purposes. This seems likely to be pushed out ASAP for another Iraq=WOT message.

[go bowe]

I recognized that morons like jAZ were likely to try to turn this thread into a Plame/Libby commutation thread and I'm really not interested in that kind of diversion.

jAZ's interpretation of what I wrote didn't make any sense to me so if you see the same thing in my post that he seems to see then I guess I was unclear.diversion?

what the hell is wrong with diversion?

isn't it basically like deflection (which appears to be quite common in this forum)?

or more like an airliner being sent to an alrernative airport for an emergency landing?

where's bep with her super secret conspiracy theories when you really need her?

we return now to your rergular programming....

[jAZ]

jAZ's interpretation of what I wrote didn't make any sense to me so if you see the same thing in my post that he seems to see then I guess I was unclear.
What exactly didn't make sense. I'll clear it up for you.

[patteeu]

What exactly didn't make sense. I'll clear it up for you.

That you interpreted my post to somehow mean "[j]ustifiable criticism is now officially limited to only those things that 'Bush administration supporters would agree'"

[Direckshun]

Yes, if there's anything I hate about this administration, it's that they're not secretive enough.

[jAZ]

That you interpreted my post to somehow mean "[j]ustifiable criticism is now officially limited to only those things that 'Bush administration supporters would agree'"
Sorry... maybe I should have said...

I don't want to hear about the Plame leak, I'm talking about leaks that even Bush administration supporters would agree have had a net damaging impact on our ability to fight the GWoT.

[jAZ]

That you interpreted my post to somehow mean "[j]ustifiable criticism is now officially limited to only those things that 'Bush administration supporters would agree'"
Should I not even bother to ask you to put a little effort into this?

[patteeu]

Should I not even bother to ask you to put a little effort into this?

I don't think your lack of a good faith effort to discuss this topic, as evidenced by your initial response, deserves much effort on my part.

Furthermore, I think you know what my point was. If the Plame leak weren't the only leak that most of the more hysterical Bush critics ever showed any interest in, I wouldn't have felt the need to mention Plame at all.

[go bowe]

leaks?

everybody leaks now and then...

oh wait...

you're not talking about taking a leak, are you?

[patteeu]

leaks?

everybody leaks now and then...

oh wait...

you're not talking about taking a leak, are you?

LOL

[jAZ]

I don't think your lack of a good faith effort to discuss this topic, as evidenced by your initial response, deserves much effort on my part.

Furthermore, I think you know what my point was. If the Plame leak weren't the only leak that most of the more hysterical Bush critics ever showed any interest in, I wouldn't have felt the need to mention Plame at all.
It's one thing to acknowledge Plame but request a focus on this event. It's something else to seek to discuss leaks broadly but limit it to only those that one ideological group endorses as fair objection.

That's obviously a completely bad faith approach to the subject from the get go.

[patteeu]

It's one thing to acknowledge Plame but request a focus on this event. It's something else to seek to discuss leaks broadly but limit it to only those that one ideological group endorses as fair objection.

That's obviously a completely bad faith approach to the subject from the get go.

I'm not really interested in what you think about my approach. In fact, if you don't want to comment on the actual topic, I'm not really interested in hearing from you at all. I have no interest in hearing from any of those, who like yourself, hyperventilated over the Plame leak, but show no interest in any of the multiple leaks that have gone straight to the heart of our warfighting capabilities.

By contrast, I'm fine with hearing from those who were upset by the Plame leak AND who were equally upset with the other leaks. That was the message I was trying to get across. I may have failed to effectively convey that message (Amnorix' confusion tends to suggest I did), but I don't think my failure is the proximate cause of your failure to make a meaningful contribution to the topic.

[jAZ]

...I'm fine with hearing from those who were upset by the Plame leak AND who were equally upset with the other leaks....
Yeah, you pretty much said the opposite.
I don't want to hear about the Plame leak...
I'm quite upset by this leak AND the Plame leak. Both appear to sacrifice our national security (to similar or differing degrees...) for seemingly terrible reasons in both cases.

Which is really the absolutely central point that too many like yourself refuse to discuss.

Some information should classified, some shouldn't.

Some leaks are justified and "good leaks", some are not.

I would think that we could agree on a general framework and only argue at the margins.

Examples...

Leaks of info classified to protect a President politcally (Clinton or Bush or whoever)... not so bad.... shouldn't use classification as a political tool.

Leaks of info classified to protect our intelligence gathering assets... bad... very bad... shouldn't sacrifice our assets.

Leaks of info classified to hide government malfeasance... good... shouldn't use classification for personal gain.

The problem comes at the boundry of these things.

Agreed?

[patteeu]

Yeah, you pretty much said the opposite.

Uh... no, I didn't. Both of those statements are consistent with one another. The "AND" means both, not either/or. And even though I'm happy about hearing from people who fall into that category, I still don't care to hear them go down the tangential path of Plame.

[go bowe]

I'm quite upset by this leak AND the Plame leak. Both appear to sacrifice our national security (to similar or differing degrees...) for seemingly terrible reasons in both cases.

Which is really the absolutely central point that too many like yourself refuse to discuss.

Some information should classified, some shouldn't.

Some leaks are justified and "good leaks", some are not.

I would think that we could agree on a general framework and only argue at the margins.

Examples...

Leaks of info classified to protect a President politcally (Clinton or Bush or whoever)... not so bad.... shouldn't use classification as a political tool.

Leaks of info classified to protect our intelligence gathering assets... bad... very bad... shouldn't sacrifice our assets.

Leaks of info classified to hide government malfeasance... good... shouldn't use classification for personal gain.

The problem comes at the boundry of these things.

Agreed? no...

[go bowe]

Uh... no, I didn't. Both of those statements are consistent with one another. The "AND" means both, not either/or. And even though I'm happy about hearing from people who fall into that category, I still don't care to hear them go down the tangential path of Plame.tangential path?

just what do you have against tangens anyway?

[jAZ]

no...
Cool... a chance to hear a bit more for GoBo(we). What's behind that one word reply?

[jAZ]

Uh... no, I didn't. Both of those statements are consistent with one another. The "AND" means both, not either/or. And even though I'm happy about hearing from people who fall into that category, I still don't care to hear them go down the tangential path of Plame.
By your logic here, they are all "consistant" with my 1st reply above. Like I said before, you didn't limit your first comments to "Plame" but broadened it to "leaks that even Bush administration supporters would agree have had a net damaging impact on our ability to fight the GWoT".

But whatever the case, I've put forward a pretty on topic post that you've chosen to skip so far.

[jAZ]

no...
BTW, I did leave one boundry condition out of that list.

That being the boundry between civil liberties and intelligence activities. It's covered under malfeasance, but helpful to be more specific I think.

[patteeu]

By your logic here, they are all "consistant" with my 1st reply above. Like I said before, you didn't limit your first comments to "Plame" but broadened it to "leaks that even Bush administration supporters would agree have had a net damaging impact on our ability to fight the GWoT".

But whatever the case, I've put forward a pretty on topic post that you've chosen to skip so far.

You said my two statements were opposites. They weren't. I can't force you to understand that, but if you can't, even after I've explained it to you, then we have nothing to say to each other.

Whatever your reason for misunderstanding my original point, whether it was because of my failure to communicate it effectively or your failure to comprehend it, I think I've made it clear enough now that any ongoing misunderstanding is on you.

As for the on topic portion of your post, of course we can agree on a framework that is something like the one you laid out. That's the easy part. It's in the interpretations of how real life situations fit into it where we will have plenty to disagree about. Good is good and bad is bad, but figuring out what's good and what's bad is the whole ballgame.

[go bowe]

Cool... a chance to hear a bit more for GoBo(we). What's behind that one word reply?<HR SIZE=1> Originally Posted by left wingnut
I'm quite upset by this leak AND the Plame leak. Both appear to sacrifice our national security (to similar or differing degrees...) for seemingly terrible reasons in both cases.

Which is really the absolutely central point that too many like yourself refuse to discuss.

Some information should classified, some shouldn't.

Some leaks are justified and "good leaks", some are not.

I would think that we could agree on a general framework and only argue at the margins.

Examples...

Leaks of info classified to protect a President politcally (Clinton or Bush or whoever)... not so bad.... shouldn't use classification as a political tool.

Leaks of info classified to protect our intelligence gathering assets... bad... very bad... shouldn't sacrifice our assets.

Leaks of info classified to hide government malfeasance... good... shouldn't use classification for personal gain.

The problem comes at the boundry of these things.

Agreed? <HR SIZE=1>no...

if you want it spelled out right now, find somebody else...

i'm kidding, sorta...

actually, i enjoyed dinner and now i'm enjoying dessert altogether too much... :bong:

maby later...

sorry...

[Radar Chief]

actually, i enjoyed dinner and now i'm enjoying dessert altogether too much... :bong:

maby later...

sorry...

:LOL: