http://www.truthout.org/
White House Has Some Terror Experts Worried
By Jeffrey Fleishman
Los Angeles Times
Wednesday 11 August 2004
Officials here and overseas say U.S. alerts and release of information
could hinder broader investigations.
Berlin - Heightened terror alerts and high-profile arrests of
suspected Islamic extremists have international security experts and
officials concerned that the Bush administration's actions could
jeopardize investigations into the Al Qaeda network.
European terrorism analysts acknowledge that the U.S. and its allies
are under threat by Al Qaeda, but some suggest that the White House is
unnecessarily adding to public anxiety with vague and dated intelligence
about possible attacks. Some in Western Europe suspect the administration
is using fear to improve its chances in the November election.
Terrorism experts say too much publicity about possible plots and
raids of Islamic extremist networks, including the arrest of 13 suspects
in Britain last week, could hurt wider investigations. American
politicians have called for an examination of that contention. Officials
in Pakistan reportedly said Tuesday that Washington's recent disclosure of
the arrest of a suspected Al Qaeda operative, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan,
allowed other extremists under surveillance to disappear.
"It causes a problem. There's no doubt about that," said Charles
Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies. "The moment you make any
announcement, you tell the other side what you know. As a rule of thumb,
you should keep quiet about what you know."
British security officials are angry over recent U.S. revelations of
terrorist threats and arrests, said Paul Beaver, an international defense
analyst based in London. He said the attitude among some British
intelligence officials was that the "Americans have a very strange way of
thanking their friends, by revealing names of agents, details of plots and
operations."
Along with such criticism, the administration faces questions at home
about how it handles terrorism investigations and alerts. It insists it
hasn't used the alerts to further Bush's political campaign, but some
Democrats disagree.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the White House, in a letter to
national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, to explain how Khan's name was
made public and whether the disclosure had jeopardized any investigations.
Rice said over the weekend that she did not know whether Khan was
cooperating with Pakistani authorities, and she said his name had not been
disclosed publicly by the administration. The administration has tried to
find a middle ground between informing the public and keeping
investigations secret, she said.
"We've tried to strike a balance," Rice said. "We think for the most
part we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to
strike."
Several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials have expressed concern
in the last week about the amount of information leaking out, saying it
has begun to have a direct and negative effect on efforts to round up
suspects and gain insight into any conspirators.
"It is really hurting our efforts in a very demonstrable way," said
one official, who declined to elaborate.
Larry Johnson, a former senior counterterrorism official at the State
Department and CIA, said Tuesday that the leaks were part of a pattern in
which the administration had undercut its own efforts to fight terrorism
by divulging details when doing so was deemed politically advantageous.
The administration "has a dismal track record in protecting these
secrets," said Johnson, deputy director of the State Department's Office
of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993.
"We have now learned, thanks to White House leaks, that the Al Qaeda
operative was being used to help authorities around the world locate and
apprehend other Al Qaeda terrorists," Johnson said, citing reports that
the disclosures "enabled other Al Qaeda operatives to escape."
"Protecting secrets and sources is serious business," he added.
"Regrettably, the Bush administration appears to be putting more emphasis
on politicizing intelligence and the war on terror. That approach
threatens our national security, in my judgment."
Officials in Western Europe are reluctant to speak even off the record
on intelligence matters. Most governments here are more circumspect in
announcing possible terrorist threats and are concerned that Washington is
acting too quickly on intelligence that has not been thoroughly analyzed.
Germany, France and Britain have not raised their terror alerts during the
August vacation season.
"The Code Orange disaster in the U.S. last week was quickly followed
by raids in Pakistan and arrests in Britain, which all help the Bush
administration show there is a global terrorist network," said Kai
Hirschmann, deputy director of the Institute for Terrorism Research in
Essen, Germany. "But I think there's a bit of politics behind it.
"What makes it complex is that we know there are dangers out there,
and that makes it difficult to tell fact from fiction," he said. "With all
this media attention, one has to wonder what else is at work."
But other countries, such as Italy, one of the closest U.S. allies on
Iraq, have followed Washington's lead. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's
government has issued numerous terrorist warnings. Thousands of extra
Italian police have been deployed after threats on an Islamic website said
terrorists would strike if Rome did not withdraw its troops from Iraq by
Aug. 15.
Europeans discovered in March that terrorists like to attack at
symbolic times: The Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people sent a
shudder through the continent just days before Spanish elections. But
skepticism toward Washington means many in Europe are wondering if the
threats recently reported in the U.S. are genuine or political spin.
In Britain, the recent raids followed last month's seizure in Pakistan
of computer files belonging to Khan. The disclosure of his arrest and
identity allowed some Al Qaeda suspects under Pakistani surveillance to
slip away, officials told Associated Press in Islamabad, the Pakistani
capital.
The files also led to Britain's arrest of Abu Eisa al Hindi, who U.S.
authorities allege was enlisted by Khan to spy on financial institutions
in New York and Washington. Hindi had been under observation by British
security officials for months. There were indications that the British
government, forced to act after Washington's disclosures about Khan's
files, felt stung by the exposure of his sudden arrest.
"It looks as though there has been some irritation at fairly high
levels in both Pakistan and Britain" over U.S. revelations, said Timothy
Garden, a security analyst at the Royal Institute of International
Affairs.
British Home Secretary David Blunkett, echoing concerns raised by U.S.
lawmakers about identifying suspects, said he would not divulge
intelligence to "feed the news frenzy." The British government, he added,
does not want to "undermine in any way our sources of information or share
information which could place investigations in jeopardy.... We don't want
to do or say anything that would prejudice any trial."
The U.S. has been less forthcoming with intelligence when it comes to
Germany's attempts to prosecute suspected terrorists. It is refusing to
allow alleged Al Qaeda operatives in its custody to testify at a retrial
of a suspected extremist that began Tuesday in Hamburg. Saying it would
harm ongoing intelligence gathering, the U.S. is denying the court access
to Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
In a letter this week to German authorities, the State Department said
it would provide only unclassified summaries of interrogations with
certain suspects. The decision, German prosecutors say, jeopardizes the
case against Mounir Motassadeq, a Moroccan accused of having links to the
Sept. 11 hijackers. A second Moroccan in Germany was acquitted this year
on similar charges after a judge found he could not get a fair trial
without access to Binalshibh or his interrogation transcripts.
The Bush administration is "creating an overall tension that has both
tactics and politics around it," Hirschmann said. "When I hear things
about concrete targets such as airports and stock exchanges, I am less
worried something will happen there. You don't publicize things. You don't
communicate what you know through the media."
In Italy, terrorist alerts have created an atmosphere similar to that
in the U.S. The Berlusconi government and the Italian media have heavily
reported threats made by militant groups to attack the country unless Rome
withdraws from Iraq.
In a front-page editorial last week, La Repubblica said Italy was in a
"poisoned climate." It said the threats had "to be weighed carefully. It
would be irresponsible to ignore them, but it would also [be wrong] to
exaggerate them to create panic and ... a psychological war."
http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004081119140001&Take=1
11 Aug 2004 19:14 GMT
Tape Shown Of Man Said To Be CIA Agent Beheaded In Iraq
Copyright © 2004, Dow Jones Newswires
CAIRO (AP)--An Internet site has carried a videotape showing an unknown
militant group suspected to be in Iraq beheading a man it claims was a CIA
agent, according to an Islamic Web site that carried footage Wednesday of
the apparent killing.
The Internet site, regarded as a clearing house for tapes and statements
from Islamic extremist groups, aired footage of eight militants surrounding
a seated man who wore a sign around his neck bearing his photograph and the
word "visitor" in large letters.
In a close-up, the footage showed a masked militant holding a large knife to
the man's throat before he started chopping at the his neck repeatedly until
the severed head fell into the victim's lap.
A masked militant was then shown holding aloft the man's head and jumping.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
08-11-04 1514ET
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081204C.shtml
Plame Leak Case Could End in Supreme Court Stand-off
By Joe Strupp
Editor & Publisher
Tuesday 10 August 2004
New York - The recent pressure on reporters to reveal sources in the
Valerie Plame investigation could end in a U.S Supreme Court standoff,
according to two leading First Amendment attorneys, one of whom fears
several leading Washington reporters could wind up in jail before it's
over.
"I think we are headed for a showdown and it would not surprise me in
the least to see half a dozen reporters sitting in a jail in D.C.," said
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press, which monitors such cases. She believes Time magazine and
other media outlets "will be willing to take this all the way to the
Supreme Court because the atmosphere here has become so difficult for
journalists to promise confidentiality that the stakes are too high."
Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center,
agreed. "Eventually it will go to the Supreme Court," she said. "I'm not
sure if a lot of people want to see that because there is always the
danger that the Supreme Court will take a strong stand against the press
on this issue."
Dalglish's and Baron's comments followed word Monday that Time
reporter Matthew Cooper had been held in contempt of court for failing to
reveal sources who disclosed that Plame was an undercover CIA officer. In
addition, Walter Pincus, a reporter for The Washington Post, received a
subpoena Monday ordering him to testify in the investigation, which is
being directed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Other
newspaper reporters are expected to receive subpoenas soon.
The Plame investigation stems from a July 14, 2003, column by
syndicated columnist Robert Novak that revealed Plame, who is married to a
former diplomat, was a CIA officer. Fitzgerald was appointed to track down
how the information was leaked.
Novak has not said if he has received a subpoena in the investigation,
but federal investigators have already interviewed Glenn Kessler, another
Post reporter, and NBC commentator Tim Russert. "I think they are trying
to go after the easy folks first who are not protecting confidentiality of
any sort," Dalglish said. "They are trying to exclude alternate sources
before they go after Novak, whom they know has confidential sources."
Baron warned that the prosecutor's ongoing efforts to demand
information from reporters in the Plame case could create a dangerous
atmosphere for journalists, and cause some sources to dry up. "My fear is
they will continue to subpoena reporters looking for sources," she said.
"Whenever you have that, it puts the entire reporting community and
sourcing community on edge. It suggests open season for prosecutors who
are looking for a short cut for answers in a grand jury investigation."
The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in Branzburg vs. Hayes, the
well-known 1972 case that offered a vague split decision. Five justices
held that there was no privilege for journalists, but agreed that a
qualified privilege should apply in some circumstances, which was the
position of the four justices in dissent.
The qualified privilege, enunciated by Justice Stewart in his
influential dissent, imposes a three-part test before journalists may be
compelled to reveal confidential information to a grand jury. The
information must be clearly relevant, cannot be obtained by alternative
means "less destructive of First Amendment rights" and be of "compelling
and overriding interest," according to the Center for Individual Freedom.
.
|
