Al Qaeda Learns From News Leaks
Posted on October 18, 2006
Hat tip: AJ Strata who points us to the NY Sun’s report that an Al Qaeda terrorist handbook has been found on the internet exploiting the information gained from the leak of the NSA program. Unsurprisingly, as the President pointed out numerous times, the enemy adjusts.
When an aspiring Al Qaeda terrorist is buying a cell phone, it’s best that he purchase the chip inside the device under a phony name or from a black market vendor that does not sell the accompanying documentation. If he has any reason to believe his phone has been tapped, he should sell it immediately to a stranger.
This is the kind of advice contained in “Myth of Delusion,” a 151-page manuscript making the rounds on password-protected jihadi Web sites. The book recently caught the attention of American intelligence analysts, who estimate that it was released sometime this summer.
…
While he makes no mention of the December 2005 New YorkTimes article that first disclosed that the National Security Agency was tapping phone numbers found in cell phones captured from suspected Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, he does devote a chapter to electronic surveillance.
In it, Mr. Hakaymah writes that any electronic communication between operatives can be monitored using key words such as “Mullah Omar,” the name of the Taliban leader, or even voice printing.
Two pages are devoted to the Echelon surveillance system, which Britain and America developed in the 1990s. Mr. Hakaymah warns future terrorists not to repeat the mistake of the Kurdish terrorist leader Abdullah Öcalan, who was captured in Nairobi, Kenya, after making a cell phone call to northern Iraq.
“The surveillance may be for a certain number or for detecting a certain voice fingerprint for a wanted person,” Mr. Hakaymah writes. “When a person’s number is detected, the recorded calls can be retrieved whether it was incoming or outgoing on that number.”
There wasn’t any personal thanks attributed to the NY Times or ACLU, but we all know who leaked this information allowing our enemy the knowledge to adjust to our tactics. Many of us are still wondering why they haven’t been held accountable for these attrocious actions. Now we hear word straight from the enemy’s mouth that the disclosure of this classified information was most helpful. When the next attempt to attack us is not prevented because programs designed to do so were exposed, don’t forget those who provided the information that allowed the enemy to adjust.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
19 Responses to “Al Qaeda Learns From News Leaks”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
You can’t possibly be serious. Use a fake name when buying an account and to get rid of a phone if you suspect it is tapped. This is the elite-super-duper-secret information that they’ve just recently gleaned because of NY Times articles?
That’s not even mentioning that the Echelon system was well documented years and years ago, well before the Times said a thing.
The only information of any merit that the NY Times released is that taps were taking place without warrants. No functional information of any relevance. Jesus, I’m about as criminal as a care bear and I could have told you to take those kinds of precautions a decade ago.
How Qaeda Warned Its Operatives on Using Cell Phon
Why do we have to have untraceable cell phones. Other than for illegal purposes, what is the need? People may need to have cell phones that they must pay for as they use them, but that does not mean they need to be untraceable.
Rove’s Ruminations
President Bush has told us MANY times as has the letters we have intercepted from al-qaeda operatives, that al-qaeda will use the press to #1 make this war as ugly and gruesome as possible so the American people will push the administration to leave Ir…
Jimmy,
“I’m about as criminal as a care bear and I could have told you to take those kinds of precautions a decade ago. ”
That is hardly a statement you can prove since, as they say, hind sight is 20-20.
Law enforcement still catches criminals because they left fingerprints at the site of the crime even though it is well known. The same with phone taps. You keep information related to stopping crime and guarding security as close to the vest as possible, so you can play on your enemies ignorance.
The question is whether the security concerns outweighed the needs of the people to know. I tend to believe they did, since a good case can be made that the executive branch was exceeding their power in the NSA wiretap situation. All Bush had to do was go to Congress and ask them to secretly pass a bill that granted him the required powers. My question is, did the Patriot Act or any other act passed after the one limiting wiretaps, grant him that power?
“…don’t forget those who provided the information that allowed the enemy to adjust.”
Indeed. Don’t forget who provided that information…
George Bush, telling terrorists about how we use “roving wiretaps” to eavesdrop on their calls - Columbus, Ohio - June 9, 2005:
George Bush, alerting terrorists to changes in our techniques for eavesdropping on their cell phone calls - Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 2005:
George Bush, alerting terrorists to the fact that we are eavesdropping on their telephone calls - Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 2005:
George Bush, telling terrorists how the Government monitors their computer communications and obtains their e-mails - Columbus, Ohio, June 9, 2005:
[...] Stop the ACLU Technorati tags: National Security, New Al Qaeda Manual, OPSEC [...]
I agree that these things shouldn’t be leaked if the information is likely to be used by the enemy to hurt us. I’m not one to think of terrorism as a crime, but follow this, if you will; there have been reports by law enforcement that shows like CSI and other cable true crime shows are teaching criminals how to better cover their tracks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
This could also be a factor in terrorism.
I also find it funny that, if the information is nothing new, then why is the NYTimes lauded for publishing it? Do they make a habit out of re-hashing old news? Guess they just do that when they have some space to fill and no more Bush-bashing articles to draw from. It pays to go back to tried-and-true, no?
Kerwin,
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but still: don’t use your real name and lose the phone if you think it is tapped. That doesn’t need 20/20 vision, that needs 6 functioning brain cells.
Your mention of of fingerprints and phone taps are both tangentially arguments for my point, not against it. Both are common knowledge but still work because criminals are a) sloppy, b) stupid, or c) a combination of both. I’d also suggest, again tangentially, that knowledge of things like this and even the dramatized (and often fictional) super-coppery shown in shows like CSI serve as a deterrent to premeditated crime. The knowledge has no effect positive or negative on crimes of passion.
Michelle,
Teach people stuff and they learn. This isn’t really a newsflash. It also ignores the fact that the techniques mentioned in the NY Times article were already well known to anyone who cared to know.
The Times wasn’t lauded for revealing spying tactics, that’s the whole point. They were given credit for exposing an illegal government program. Incidentally, terrorists had no reason to think they weren’t already being tapped since it would have been perfectly possible and largely trivial for the government to get the warrants for all the spying they needed, even after the fact. The only news here was that they were/are ignoring the constitution unnecessarily, if such a thing is ever necessary.
They were given credit for exposing an illegal government program.
Are you saying that a program that has been active for at least 24 years, 12 under Democrats, known by the FBI, CIA, NSA, HSA and numerous Intelligence Committees(with Democrats on them),was left to a newspaper to determine it illegal and expose it?
it would have been perfectly possible and largely trivial for the government to get the warrants for all the spying they needed,
Trivial? I’d imagine that Bush would realize that some of the information being collected could have a bearing on whether hundreds of people live or die.
Knowing that, and the fact that people in the CIA, House and Senate are handing out classified information to newspapers like the NYT,on an on-going basis, it would be safer and more prudent to keep it under wraps.
Its hard enough keeping this info secret, but when we have people playing politics with citizen’s lives, and it’s people in our own government and country cutting our throat, I’ll cut him some slack.
Jimmy,
“The only news here was that they were/are ignoring the constitution unnecessarily, if such a thing is ever necessary.”
What you stated is inaccurate since at long as one end of the conversation was outside of the jurisdiction of the United States then the U.S. Constitution did not apply. It also does not apply if a person on either end is an Alien as Aliens are not protected by the U.S. Constitution as is specifically states it is to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity”.
In all appearances the wiretapping violated a law passed by Congress that mandated the use of the FICA courts. If another law later gave the executive branch permission then the wiretapping was legal.
“Are you saying that a program that has been active for at least 24 years, 12 under Democrats, known by the FBI, CIA, NSA, HSA and numerous Intelligence Committees (with Democrats on them), was left to a newspaper to determine it illegal and expose it?”
The NYT did not expose the fact that the wiretapping was being done. That was already well known, thanks in no small part to the words of George W. Bush himself. The NYT revealed that the wiretaps were being done without the warrants required by FISA.
“Knowing that, and the fact that people in the CIA, House and Senate are handing out classified information to newspapers like the NYT, on an on-going basis, it would be safer and more prudent to keep it under wraps.”
FISA gives the President no leeway to order wiretaps without obtaining a warrant. The warrant can in certain instance be acquired retroactively, but a warrant must be obtained.
There is no credible evidence that the substance of wiretaps authorized under FISA were being leaked by anyone at the time the Bush administration began ordering wiretaps without requesting warrants from the FISA court.
FISA gives the President no leeway to order wiretaps without obtaining a warrant. The warrant can in certain instance be acquired retroactively, but a warrant must be obtained.
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
US CODE
Granted…(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.
…is an impediment, but not one that every President that has used it, hasn’t danced around.
Clinton used it for personal reasons and not national security, and no one squawked about it.
Carter used it and no one squawked.
Now that Bush has used it, for reasons of national security, the libs are squawking.
The NYT revealed that the wiretaps were being done without the warrants required by FISA.
Any information requesting warrants, require the AG to submit the request and report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.(Rockefeller, Leahy)>
[I'll refer to my previous statement above]> Knowing that, and the fact that people in the CIA, House and Senate are handing out classified information to newspapers like the NYT,on an on-going basis, it would be safer and more prudent to keep it under wraps.
Are you understanding now?
There is no credible evidence that the substance of wiretaps authorized under FISA were being leaked by anyone at the time the Bush administration began ordering wiretaps without requesting warrants from the FISA court.
Nov-2004
a Turkish [FBI] linguist in Washington, failed to translate transcripts of recorded conversations involving people she knew, steered co-workers away from certain recordings and leaked wiretap information to acquaintances.
Thats a peon in the chain.
“there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.”
The illegal wiretaps that were revealed by the NYT were, in fact, communications to which a United States person was a party. Those wiretaps were between United States persons and individuals outside the US. That is what made them illegal. Perhaps loboinok should read more than just the headings of the law.
“Clinton used it for personal reasons and not national security, and no one squawked about it.
Carter used it and no one squawked.”
loboinok provides no context nor evidence for his accusations. Are we supposed to just take his word for this? I think not.
Further: There is no provision of the law that permits any administration to ignore its provisions simply because claims that been made that an earlier administration violated the law. Law does not work that way. Perhaps loboinok was unaware of this rather basic principle.
“Any information requesting warrants, require the AG to submit the request and report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.(Rockefeller, Leahy)>”
Irrelevant. The committees do not provide the warrants. The FISA court does that — and the Bush administration simply ignored that requirement.
“I’ll refer to my previous statement above”
Repeating a false justification does not make it true. The law requires that the administration get warrants. There is no provision of the law that permits the acquisition of warrants to be skipped simply because somebody somewhere might leak the information. Warrants are a requirement. Period.
“Nov-2004″
Irrelevant. (Also unreferenced. loboinok likes to post random information without any indication of its source.) The warrantless wiretaps began long before November of 2002. And again: There is no provision of the law that permits the acquisition of warrants to be skipped simply because somebody somewhere might leak the information. Warrants are a requirement. Period.
I should have said above that the wiretaps began long before November of 2004.
“there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.”
The illegal wiretaps that were revealed by the NYT were, in fact, communications to which a United States person was a party. Those wiretaps were between United States persons and individuals outside the US. That is what made them illegal. Perhaps loboinok should read more than just the headings of the law.
CNN.COM
Those wiretaps were between United States persons and individuals outside the US.
” Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;”
“Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;”
whitehouse.gov
Faris entered this country with intent… Faris obtained citizenship to secure constitutional protection… Faris planned terrorist attacks on the U.S. …technically, Faris, as a “citizen” would be covered by the above law…
any reasonnably intelligent person knows that the constitution would not support a law that would endanger the country or it’s citizens.
Perhaps vlees hersenen should read more than just the letter of the law.
Faris’ “oath” to obtain citizenship was fraudulent and would have taken longer to negate, in court, than the government could allow, given the circumstances.
Are you suggesting that once the NSA determined that Faris was a US Citizen, all intercepted communications be ignored?
“The requirement to obtain court-orders for wiretaps of U.S. persons did not prevent NSA from intercepting the communications of Americans when the intercept was the result of targeting a non-U.S. person at a communications node outside of the United States - an activity whose legality survived a challenge before the Supreme Court.”
gwu.edu
_______________________________________________________
“Clinton used it for personal reasons and not national security, and no one squawked about it.
Carter used it and no one squawked.”
loboinok provides no context nor evidence for his accusations. Are we supposed to just take his word for this? I think not.
“In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.”
“Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.”
washtimes.com
_______________________________________________________
Further: There is no provision of the law that permits any administration to ignore its provisions simply because claims that been made that an earlier administration violated the law. Law does not work that way. Perhaps loboinok was unaware of this rather basic principle.
Who made claims that “earlier administrations” violated the law?
I said they danced around § 1802. (b), and used warrantless wiretaps.
________________________________________________________
“Any information requesting warrants, require the AG to submit the request and report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.(Rockefeller, Leahy)>”
Irrelevant. The committees do not provide the warrants. The FISA court does that — and the Bush administration simply ignored that requirement.
1. The committees provide oversight.
2. Classified information is provided to these committees for oversight.
3. There are members of these committees, who are suspected of divulging classified information to the media.
IF Bush ignored that requirement, he did so in the interests of National Security.
I know it probably breaks your heart that Bush is frustrating the medias’ ability to supply information to terrorists but that’s just too damned bad.
________________________________________________________
Warrants are a requirement. Period.
The Bush Administration’s authority to conduct warrentless wiretaps has already been approved and confirmed by; The War Powers Resolution, White House lawyers, Justice Dept., two US Attorneys General and the NSA’s legal and ethics Div.
And THAT you can Google yourself.
http://vleeshersenen.googlepages.com/response200610211245
loboinok gives no indication who “Faris” is, or why it matters. Spewing random tidbits devoid of context isn’t an argument.
I provided a link. The reading and comprehending is your responsibility.
The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.
As I stated above and you continue to ignore…
Who made claims that “earlier administrations” violated the law?
Irrelevant. FISA does not allow for wiretaps to be placed without a warrant, regardless of who suspect whom of what.
What’s irrelevent is your obvious acceptence that libs can violate National Security and the law by divulging and disseminating classified information, but insist that the President, who can declare Martial law and suspend the Constitution, is not able to counter that move to honor his oath. Especially since it has been shown by several sources, that he can.
(posted here as the spam filter on StopTheACLU.com no longer permits me to post a response of any useful length)
A check of the filter does not show you in it. You are not yet blacklisted and your IP has not been banned. So unless you are using profanity, there is no reason you could not post what you posted off site, here.
The conversation originated here and it will stay here. Any further links to comments concerning this thread, will be deleted.
If you are going to ignore provided links and disregard sources, there is no reason to waste my time.
Warrants are a requirement. Period. The law does not permit anyone to override that requirement. Period.
Done all the time and with increasing frequency.
_____________________________________________
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/roberts020306.pdf
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
Here’s one that supports your position…
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj-response.pdf
“What’s irrelevent is your obvious acceptence that libs can violate National Security and the law by divulging and disseminating classified information, but insist that the President, who can declare Martial law and suspend the Constitution, is not able to counter that move to honor his oath.”
Meaningless. The President may not violate the law, no matter what anyone else has (allegedly) done.
“Especially since it has been shown by several sources, that he can.”
There is no law in existence that permits the President to violate laws at will.
“So unless you are using profanity, there is no reason you could not post what you posted off site, here.”
Wrong. The spam filter rejected my last post — several times.
“The conversation originated here and it will stay here. Any further links to comments concerning this thread, will be deleted.”
loboinok now threatens to delete comments because he cannot make sensible counterarguments.
“Done all the time and with increasing frequency.”
Still false. Letters from an attorney general do not have the force of law, and cannot empower the President to violate laws at will. FISA does not permit the requirement for warrants to be ignored or bypassed in any way. Period. No amount of kicking and screaming by loboinok or anyone else can change that fact.
loboinok now threatens to delete comments because he cannot make sensible counterarguments.
No “meatbrain,” that’s not why.
85.225.170.99
85.214.73.63
204.13.236.244
80.237.173.67
8.7.49.235
24.209.207.154
Want to try again?