"We See No Need for Action"
/in Terrorism /by emptywheelSince the alleged abductions did not take place on Austrian soil, in anAustrian airplane or on an Austrian ship, we see no need for action.
We see no need for action. That’s what a spokesperson for the Austrian Interior Ministry said in response to learning that long-time Austrian resident and Sudanese citizen Masaad Omer Behari was held for three months without cause in Jordan. The Jordanians even told Behari they didn’t believe him to be a terrorist–they just needed information.
But Austria did nothing because, after all, Behari isn’t an Austrian citizen, he wasn’t kidnapped on Austrian soil, he wasn’t abducted in an Austrian plane. Of course, they had him under surveillance. The Jordanians–and their US puppet-masters–no doubt learned of Behari’s movement through the Austrians. But still. We see no need for action.
That’s the picture of the US extraordinary rendition program described in Craig Whitlock’s WaPo article and accompanying court transcript. It’s all carefully designed such that there is no trace, no legal authority, "no need for action."
Why Didn't Judy Flog the Purported Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection?
/in Terrorism, War /by emptywheelPresident Bush’s claim the other day that no one ever claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11 got me thinking. Judy Miller reported extensively on Al Qaeda before 9/11–both the previous World Trade Center bombing and on terrorist financing. We know she tried to report on imminent threats from Al Qaeda in summer 2001. She did some of the most celebrated reporting on Al Qaeda just after the attack. And even in fall 2002, she continued to report on Al Qaeda threats that had nothing to do with Iraq–the discovery of possible weapons lap in Kandahar and a report on Saudi financial ties to Al Qaeda. But she never made the claim of an Al Qaeda-Iraq link.
That’s particularly remarkable considering her famous September 8, 2002 article on aluminum tubes (actually her article co-author Michael Gordon apparently got the aluminum tube leak first) included every other complaint the US had against Iraq. That article describes Iraq’s purported nuclear program, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its missiles capabilities. In the article, she listed almost exactly the same things administration officials (Condi, Rummy, Dick, and Powell all appeared) did on the Sunday shows the morning her article appeared and almost exactly the Read more →
Predictable Failure Update
/in Terrorism /by emptywheelJustin Rood points to this Observer article which supports two of my past speculations.
emptywheel, 8/18
But I suspect he may be misreading theadministration’s dominant impulse with regards to information. Roodargues that because the administration hates leaks, the leak musteither have been sanctioned or just something the administrationmissed.
Most likely, the leak was sanctioned. Alternatively, it was originally unsanctioned but aided the administration’s goals, so they let it slide.
ButI would argue–and (as Rood himself admits) you can ask Valerie Plameabout this–that the administration doesn’t so much hate leaks. Itsprimary motivating impulse is that it hates losing control of the information. If leaks serve its immediate political purpose, they’re all well and good, according to the administration.
Observer, 8/21
Anti-terror police in Britain have made an angry request to their UScounterparts asking them to stop leaking details of this month’ssuspected bomb plot over fears that it could jeopardise the chances ofa successful prosecution and hamper the gathering of evidence.
TheBritish security services, MI5 and MI6, are understood to be dismayedthat a number of sensitive details surrounding the alleged plot -including an FBI estimate that as many as 50 people were involved -were leaked to the media.
Secrecy or Spin?
/in Terrorism /by emptywheelJustin Rood points out an interesting leak–the tidbit that some of the people arrested in last week’s alleged terrorist plot made phone calls to the United States.
That’s why my antennae started buzzing when I read this paragraph from an Aug. 12 AP story about U.S. government efforts to trace possible domestic links to the recently-foiled London terror plot:
Two. . . U.S. counterterrorism officials, speaking oncondition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation,said the British suspects placed calls to several cities in the UnitedStates before their arrests. At least some of the calls were placed topeople in New York, Washington, Chicago and Detroit, one official said.The suspects are all British citizens, mostly men in the 20s and 30s ofPakistani descent.
Now, that appears to be remarkably specific intelligence leaked fromwithin an ongoing terror investigation — classified information thatcould not only reveal sources and methods, but also tip off possiblesuspects before the Feds got to them
But I suspect he may be misreading the administration’s dominant impulse with regards to information. Rood argues that because the administration hates leaks, the leak must either have been sanctioned or just something the administration missed.
How Was Rashid Rauf Arrested?
/in Terrorism /by emptywheelAtrios links to Andrew Sullivan being skeptical who links to Craig Murray being even more skeptical. And Murray raised a point that I had raised earlier. Here’s Murray:
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance forover a year – like thousands of other British Muslims. And not justMuslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the needfor early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazingplot to blow up multiple planes – which, rather extraordinarily, hadnot turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogatorsof the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing likecanaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the mostextraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to givethe interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effortto stop or avert torture. What it doesn’t give is the truth.
Now I’m frankly not as skeptical as Murray; Meteor Blades has made a pretty convincing case, after all, that we need to be skeptical in all directions (and I believe Meteor Blades unquestioningly). But I do want to raise a question I’ve already asked.