Here’s an email I sent to Juan Cole today.

======

First you have to understand that the NYT was the first newspaper to break the news about Khan’s arrest. Every other newspaper picked up on what the NYT story.

Here’s google news on August 1 (Philippine time):

http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=d&num=20&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22naeem+noor+khan%22&btnG=Search+News&as_drrb=b&as_minm=8&as_mind=1&as_maxm=8&as_maxd=1

you may have to adjust the setting to August 2 in the US.

Here is the original New York Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/02intel.html?ex=1249099200&en=fb9a624b3a180ee7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

“The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials.

The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages.

A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information.“

There you have it professor, the original leaker outing Khan was a Pakistani Intelligence officer, not Tom Ridge or DHS. The U.S. official wouldn’t even confirm the existence of Noor Khan until after his name was published on the effing NYT.

More

A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said “documentary evidence” found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.

One senior American intelligence official said the information was more detailed and precise than any he had seen during his 24-year career in intelligence work. A second senior American official said it had provided a new window into the methods, content and distribution of Qaeda communications.

“This, for us, is a potential treasure trove,” said a third senior American official, an intelligence expert, at a briefing for reporters on Sunday afternoon.

Notice anything? These US officials only wanted to talk about intelligence information… probably because of pressure from the media to justify raising the terror alert to orange based on “outdated” (4 years old) info by releasing new details and to counter the charges that they were playing politics with the terror warnings. As far as I can see, NONE of them gave any names before the first NYT article on Khan came out.

And this Reuters article backs up that claim:

The New York Times obtained Khan’s name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning.

Once that name is out in the public and in drudge’s website, the damage has been done and whether US officials should have confirmed the name or not, most of the blame should go to the NYT (and the unnamed Pakistani official) for setting us back on the WOT.

Yes, Rice did admit that they confirmed the name on background, but that was after the Khan’s name was already released publicly.

Horse. Barn. Door.

Here’s more from the original NYT article:

The American officials would say only that the Qaeda figure whose capture had led to the discovery of the documentary evidence had been captured with the help of the C.I.A. Though Pakistan announced the arrest last week of a Qaeda member, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the bombings of American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the American officials suggested that he had not been the source of the new threat information.

An account provided by a Pakistani intelligence official made clear that the crucial capture in recent weeks had been that of Mr. Khan, who is also known as Abu Talha. The intelligence official provided information describing Mr. Khan as having assisted in evaluating potential American and Western targets for terrorist attacks, and as being representative of a “new Al Qaeda.”

The Pakistani official described Mr. Khan as a fluent English speaker who had told investigators that he had visited the United States, Britain, Germany and other countries. Mr. Khan was one of thousands of Pakistani militants who trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban in the 1990′s, the Pakistani official said.

If indeed Mr. Khan was the man whose arrest led the C.I.A. to new evidence, his role as a kind of clearinghouse of Qaeda communications, as described by the Pakistani intelligence official, could have made him a vital source of information. Since his arrest, Mr. Khan has described an elaborate communications system that involves the use of high and low technology, the Pakistani official said.

2 points:

1) Notice that the American official would only describe the man as an “Al Queda figure”, but the NYT describes Pakistani officials naming and describing Khan in detail.

2) The NYT is not even sure if Khan’s arrest is what led the US to new evidence because the American officials did not name Khan at that time.

As for this news:

The Pakistani officials said that after Khan’s arrest, other al-Qaida suspects abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.

The first official described the publication of the news of Khan’s arrest as “very disturbing.”

“We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak,” he said.

I think this is just CYA for the Pakistani government.

regards,

John Marzan

P.S. Again, I would like the NYT to explain themselves on this in the editorial. We’ve heard the US admin side through Condi Rice, now the NYT will have to explain themselves.

I hope they do it soon because it is unfair for the Bush admin to take all the false blame for outing Khan. Their editors should clearly state the facts and not using “Clintonian” words to confuse readers.

BTW, I have set this up for you so you can monitor the NYT if and when they come out with an editorial on the noor khan issue.

http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=d&num=20&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=source%3Anew_york_times+%22naeem+noor+khan%22&btnG=Search+News&as_drrb=b&as_minm=8&as_mind=1&as_maxm=8&as_maxd=31

So far, they have not weighed in on this and their silence is DEAFENING.

Interesting version of patriotism.

BTW, anyone recall when Roger abandoned his hagiographic blogging of Ahmed Chalabi’s career?

He shoulda been a dentist.

The word is simply not in his vocabulary.

We also have a senator like Schumer here in Illinois, Dick Durbin. He criticized President Bush for releasing the names & photos of the terrorists a couple of months ago. One of those listed was a chap named Ghailani, aka “Fupi” who was captured a week ago in Pakistan with a bunch of intel.

These guys are, frankly, on auto-embarrassment mode.

In response to an objection about the short term nature of his economic theories, John Maynard Keynes once said “in the long run, we’re all dead.” In this context, the quote is apt, unfortunately, in more ways than one.