Another Reminder Why Intelligence Gathering Secrets Should Remain Secret


Just another reminder why the fact that someone leaked our intelligence gathering secrets to the enemy via our press should be a hangable offense.  This kind of intelligence gathering does not occur when the enemy knows the what, when, and how we gathering intel:

As an American-born spokesman for Al Qaeda threatens to blow up American embassies abroad, intelligence gleaned from last month’s British “doctors plot” of car bombers suggests that a Qaeda cell is on the loose in the American homeland.

E-mail addresses for American individuals were found on the same password-protected e-mail chains used by the United Kingdom plotters to communicate with Qaeda handlers in Europe, a counterterrorism official told The New York Sun yesterday. The American and German intelligence community now believe the secure e-mail chains used in the United Kingdom plot have provided a window into an operational Qaeda network in several countries.

“Because of the London and Glasgow plot, we now know communications have been made from Al Qaeda to operatives in the United States,” the counterterrorism official said on condition of anonymity. “This plot helps to connect a lot of stuff. We have seen money moving a lot through hawala networks and other illicit finance as well.” But this source was careful to say that at this point no specific information, such as names, targets or a timeline, was known about any particular plot on American soil. The e-mail addresses that are linked to Americans were pseudonyms.

Get that?  "Operatives in the United States."  But hey, I’m betting they are all probably avid rocket hobbyists who enjoy driving as a pastime.

So why in the hell should we be able to listen in on them as they speak to Uncle Ahmed in Saudi Arabia?  The leftists and the MSM (I know, one and the same) tell us they mean us no harm.  9/11, the Cole, the African Embassies….all a fluke. 

Terrorists who had planned to detonate gel-based explosives on U.S.-bound flights from London last August would have achieved mass devastation, according to new information from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in an exclusive interview with ABC News.

"I think that the plot, in terms of its intent, was looking at devastation on a scale that would have rivaled 9/11," Chertoff told ABC’s Pierre Thomas. "If they had succeeded in bringing liquid explosives on seven or eight aircraft, there could have been thousands of lives lost and an enormous economic impact with devastating consequences for international air travel."

Sources tell ABC News that after studying the plot, government officials have concluded that without the tip to British authorities, the suspects could have likely smuggled the bomb components onboard using sports drinks.


One official who briefed ABC News said explosives and security experts who examined the plot were "stunned at the extent that the suspects had gamed the system to exploit its weaknesses."

"There’s no question that they had given a lot of thought to how they might smuggle containers with liquid explosives onto airplanes," Chertoff said. "Without getting into things that are still classified, they obviously paid attention to the ways in which they thought they might be able to disguise these explosives as very innocent types of everyday articles."


"I got a call telling me that it looked as if the focus had turned on an attack on the United States, specifically an attack on airliners leaving from Britain, traveling to American cities," Chertoff said. "It also became evident, within 24 hours, that the time frame within which the attack was going to take place, would not be a matter of months but … a matter of weeks or even days."

But hey, Ahmed from Saudi Arabia should be free to call into this country knowing full well that the United States is behind him 100%.  No way, no how should we be allowed to listen in on his conversations to his nephew as they plan the next attack against our country.  I mean we’re talking about civil rights here people!


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hey, terrorists have rights, too.

They have the right to remain dead silent, especially the ‘dead’ part.

I hear you… As I said before, the left had absolutely no problem “profiling” Christians, legal gun-owners, constitutionalists, and using unwarranted wire taps/FBI investigations/IRS audits/email tracking during the Clinton years (but only against political opponents). They just, for *some* reason get all upset when we look at their islamofascist compatriots.

I do not know what will wake the left up, but I am willing to bet that if they win the Presidency in 2008, they will not only keep the provisions of the Patriot Act, but erase the civil protections within the act and expand the government survailence network. Only their focus will shift from actual terrorism/islamofascism to chasing political opponents and “militias”. The terrorists will still attack us, but only the really big attacks will make news. Those will be answered with cruise missle attacks against empty camps.

recap of polls
-97% of Americans do not approve of Congress’ handling of Iraq War

-Support for the initial invasion of Iraq is back on the rise

-People seeing progress and hope through the latest offensive on the rise

-overall Congressional approval rating lower than President’s and lowest in American history (not sure if lower than before Civil War, but would be interested in seeing)

-Surge is succeeding in most areas (kinda stupid to say a military offensive isn’t succeeding because political objectives aren’t being met since military ops aim to succeed at military objectives)

Yep, gonna be tough to be a Democrat and get more than 3% support after General P’s report next month.

Fact is, last fall the polls were dead even until Democrats promised that their New Direction in Iraq would be a new plan for success. Reid, Pelosi, Dean and others advocated sending more troops. Then the Dems broke out of the deadlock and took the lead in the polls. They won control of Congress/made the President a lame duck. Bush sent more troops, and the Democrats flipped back and demanded immediate withdrawal under the claim that they’d been given a mandate by the American people to start a new direction in Iraq. Problem is, Bush provided that new direction. He sent more troops as Democratic Party leaders advocated, but those same leaders couldn’t possibly tell their base that they agreed with the President regardless of how right any decision he ever makes might be. Why? Because they’re still fighting to win the 2000 and 2004 elections by Bush bashing despite the fact that he’s not even on the ticket in 08. That’s how deep their frustration and alienation is seated. Good decisions are irrelevent if they can’t be backed by Bush hate.

and now, the chickens are coming home to roost. The anti-war, immediate withdrawal, runaway at any cost crowd is as frustrated as the American people who were misled into believing that the Democrats’ promised New Direction was a new direction for success; American success. The DNC leaders have pissed off 97% of the nation when it comes to their handling of the Iraq war (err, “situation” per Speaker Pelosi).

Good news is that they can’t go any lower now.

Can they?