PDA

View Full Version : OT - NYT: Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say


NoMyths
08-02-2004, 11:05 PM
Link: NYT: Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03intel.html?hp)

Full Text:
Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say
By Douglas Jehl and David Johnston

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 -Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.

But the officials continued to regard the information as significant and troubling because the reconnaissance already conducted has provided Al Qaeda with the knowledge necessary to carry out attacks against the sites in Manhattan, Washington and Newark. They said Al Qaeda had often struck years after its operatives began surveillance of an intended target.

Taken together with a separate, more general stream of intelligence, which indicates that Al Qaeda intends to strike in the United States this year, possibly in New York or Washington, the officials said even the dated but highly detailed evidence of surveillance was sufficient to prompt the authorities to undertake a global effort to track down the unidentified suspects involved in the surveillance operations.

"You could say that the bulk of this information is old, but we know that Al Qaeda collects, collects, collects until they're comfortable,'' said one senior government official. "Only then do they carry out an operation. And there are signs that some of this may have been updated or may be more recent.''

Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said on Monday in an interview on PBS that surveillance reports, apparently collected by Qaeda operatives had been "gathered in 2000 and 2001.'' But she added that information may have been updated as recently as January.

The comments of government officials on Monday seemed softer in tone than the warning issued the day before. On Sunday, officials were circumspect in discussing when the surveillance of the financial institutions had occurred, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge cited the quantity of intelligence from "multiple reporting streams'' that he said was "alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information.''

The officials said on Monday that they were still analyzing computer records, photos, drawings and other documents, seized last month in Pakistan, which showed that Qaeda operatives had conducted extensive reconnaissance.

"What we've uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack," a senior American official said.

Still, the official said the new trove of material, which was being sifted for fresh clues, combined with more recent flows of intelligence, had demonstrated that Al Qaeda remains active and intent on attacking the United States.

The concern about the possibility of an attack was apparent on Monday. Armed guards were positioned at the five targets listed by Mr. Ridge: the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup buildings in Manhattan, the headquarters of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington and Prudential Financial in Newark. The buildings were subjected to their highest level of security since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, with barricades, rapid-response teams and bomb-sniffing dogs providing rings of protection.

With intelligence reports specifying a possible truck bombing, police stopped and searched vehicles in the Wall Street area, while vans and trucks were banned from bridges and tunnels entering lower Manhattan.

In Washington, President Bush said the alert issued on Sunday reflected "a serious business.'' He said at a White House news conference, "We wouldn't be contacting authorities at the local level unless something was real.''

Despite the new terror warnings, the stock market gained ground, denting expectations that it would drop with the heightened security alert. The Dow Jones industrial average was up 39 points.

A sizable part of the information seized in Pakistan described reconnaissance carried out before the Sept. 11 attacks, officials said. The documents do not indicate who wrote the detailed descriptions of security arrangements at the financial buildings or whether the surveillance was conducted for a current operation or was part of preparations for a plan that was later set aside.

In a briefing on Sunday, a senior intelligence official said that the threat to the financial institutions "probably continues even today."

Federal authorities said on Monday that they had uncovered no evidence that any of the surveillance activities described in the documents was currently under way. They said officials in New Jersey had been mistaken in saying on Sunday that some suspects had been found with blueprints and may have recently practiced "test runs'' aimed at the Prudential building in Newark.

Joseph Billy Jr., the special agent in charge of the F.B.I.'s Newark office, said a diagram of the Prudential building had been found in Pakistan. "It appears to be from the period around 9/11,'' Mr. Billy said. "Now we're trying to see whether it goes forward from there.''

Another counterterrorism official in Washington said that it was not yet clear whether the information pointed to a current plot. "We know that Al Qaeda routinely cases targets and then puts the plans on a shelf without doing anything,'' the official said.

The documents were found after Pakistani authorities acting on information supplied by the Central Intelligence Agency arrested Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, an engineer who was found to have served as a middleman in facilitating Qaeda communications. His capture led the C.I.A. to laptop computers, CD-ROM's, and other storage devices that contained copies of communications describing the extensive surveillance.

Mr. Khan had been essentially unknown to the United States as recently as May, according to information provided by a Pakistani intelligence official, who said the C.I.A. had described him to Pakistani authorities that month only as a shadowy figure identified by his alias, Abu Talha.

The lack of knowledge about Mr. Khan reflected how hard it has been for American authorities to penetrate Al Qaeda. He operated successfully without the government learning of his existence even after three years of an intensive intelligence war against Qaeda that has emphasized efforts to intercept the terror network's communications traffic.

In pursuing the new leads, intelligence and law enforcement authorities were working at several different levels, American officials said, in trying to make sense of what some described as a "jigsaw puzzle" that included first names, aliases, and temporary email addresses but little hard identifying material that could lead to suspects in the United States or overseas.

The scope of the inquiry ranged from "individuals who were orchestrating it from far-off lands to individuals who were in charge of different cells, to the actual operating of cells," a senior intelligence official said. The priority effort to identify people connected to the surveillance of the financial institutions has been under way since counterterrorism officials received the new information from Pakistan beginning Thursday evening, counterterrorism officials said on Monday.

The information, which officials said was indicative of preparations for a possible truck- or car-bomb attack, left significant gaps. It did not clearly describe the suspected plot, indicate when an attack was to take place nor did it describe the identities of people involved.

As a result, federal and local authorities began an effort to locate possible suspects who might have carried out the surveillance. Intelligence officers began interviewing Qaeda detainees asking whether they knew Mr. Khan or anyone who might have been involved in monitoring the targeted buildings and allied foreign intelligence services were asked if they had any information about the suspected plot.

At the same time, federal agents and local police began canvassing the buildings regarded as likely targets seeking to determine whether anyone recalled seeing people who appeared to be conducting surveillance. They sought lists of employees to determine whether anyone suspicious might have worked at any of the buildings and names of vendors, searching for anyone who might have visited the buildings to study security arrangements.

Senior counterterrorism and intelligence officials based in Europe said the information targeting the five buildings was developed by Qaeda operatives before Sept. 11, 2001. But a senior European counterterrorism official cautioned that "some recent information'' indicated that the buildings might remain on a list of Qaeda targets.

"Al Qaeda routinely comes up with ways to hit targets for years at a time, so it may not mean much that these buildings were first targeted more than three years ago,'' the official said.

sabotai
08-02-2004, 11:07 PM
Maybe it's just me, but when it comes to terrorist attacks and the potential for them, I prefer my government operate under the philosophy of "better safe then sorry". (EDIT: IOW, If they alerted us and then found out they were old, fine by me. If they waited to confirm they were current reports...but oops, that gave them time to carry out their attacks, obviously not fine by me.)

EagleFan
08-02-2004, 11:21 PM
It's more dammed if they do, dammed if they don't crap. If no alert had been raised, the backlash after an attack would have been even worse, and by the same people who complain about the alerts.

GrantDawg
08-02-2004, 11:27 PM
People lost, man! Won't someone please think of the children...er, I mean post count!

Dutch
08-02-2004, 11:33 PM
NYT definately going for the 'USA blunders again' crowd with the headline. Kind of misleading as a majority of the article really details how valuable the find is and that an attack is probably in the works.

NoMyths
08-02-2004, 11:41 PM
Be afraid, dammit!

Dutch
08-02-2004, 11:52 PM
Hey, it's your NYT article, I didn't write it!

Arles
08-02-2004, 11:56 PM
Kind of like that out of date memo using data from the mid to late 90s called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States".

stevew
08-02-2004, 11:57 PM
I regard the New York Times the same way that a liberal views the Washington Post, or Fox News. Somewhere in the middle is some honest, unslanted news.

Flasch186
08-03-2004, 06:31 AM
Maybe it's just me, but when it comes to terrorist attacks and the potential for them, I prefer my government operate under the philosophy of "better safe then sorry". (EDIT: IOW, If they alerted us and then found out they were old, fine by me. If they waited to confirm they were current reports...but oops, that gave them time to carry out their attacks, obviously not fine by me.)


I agree, im all about transparency. If the damn sheep out there get flipped out and start adding politics to it, that si their own damn fault. Maybe Rove is back there pulling strings but if they dont put this stuff out there and the sky comes down, were going to have to have a 8/13 comission.

Flasch186
08-03-2004, 06:33 AM
Kind of like that out of date memo using data from the mid to late 90s called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States".

ARLES, how do you possibly KNOW something about the info going into that PDB since the only thing released about it is the title. YOu have no clue about that info. as i do not either but of course you pull it out and throw it on the table without opening it up....cuz its impossible to know anything more. halarious.

Glengoyne
08-03-2004, 10:45 AM
ARLES, how do you possibly KNOW something about the info going into that PDB since the only thing released about it is the title. YOu have no clue about that info. as i do not either but of course you pull it out and throw it on the table without opening it up....cuz its impossible to know anything more. halarious.
Wasn't the whole text made public? I seem to recall the media saying it was "unprecedented"

Flasch186
08-03-2004, 11:46 AM
They only released the title to the public as far as i know. If you are a senator perhaps you read it but thats it....Im pretty sure.

EDIT: and it was only released when Condi said it at the hearings.

CamEdwards
08-03-2004, 12:18 PM
I regard the New York Times the same way that a liberal views the Washington Post, or Fox News. Somewhere in the middle is some honest, unslanted news.

I think you mean the Washington Times, Steve.

Just a couple of points that the NYT didn't really feel it necessary to include.

While "much" of the information dates back to before 9/11, other information appears to have been updated as recently as January. Since we know that the planning for the Madrid train bombings began before 9/11, doesn't it make sense that authorities wouldn't want to take unnecessary risks of an attack occuring in these targeted areas?

Also, British intelligence reports an al-Queda operative who was captured has told them financial institutions (like the ones we were warned about over the weekend) were/are targeted for an attack in early September (actually what he's quoted as saying is "sixty days before the November election").

I know it's the hip thing to distrust the government now, but I refuse to believe that any administration would be using this information for some weird political game, or to keep us afraid. If Kerry wins in November, I'll take that administrations warnings of specific threats seriously as well. To do otherwise is to believe that not only the current administration, but career intelligence officials are out to deceive the American people. I'm not ready to be fitted for that tinfoil hat just yet.

JonInMiddleGA
08-03-2004, 12:30 PM
Would this be the 9/11-Bin Laden memo ya'll are talking about?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/

Fritz
08-03-2004, 12:31 PM
But the officials continued to regard the information as significant and troubling because the reconnaissance already conducted has provided Al Qaeda with the knowledge necessary to carry out attacks against the sites in ... Newark.


how many targets could there be in newark, and who could tell if something happened anyhow?

cartman
08-03-2004, 12:47 PM
I was one of the ones complaining about some of the previous alerts. But I was all for this one. They gave some specifics, and it wasn't just a general "be on the lookout for suspicious activity anywhere, anytime".

Even if the report is a couple of years old, it shows their MO for investigating and planning their attacks. They also are known to shelve ideas for a while, and bring them back in a similar or slightly modified form. The original plan for the hijacking of airplanes was to blow up several simulatenously over the Pacific, and that morphed into flying them into buildings.

Drake
08-03-2004, 01:01 PM
Be afraid, dammit!

Heh. I love you, NM.

gstelmack
08-03-2004, 02:44 PM
NYT definately going for the 'USA blunders again' crowd with the headline. Kind of misleading as a majority of the article really details how valuable the find is and that an attack is probably in the works.
My reaction exactly, and apparently missed by several of the other posts in this thread. They start off decrying "The information is years old!" and then go on to point out that this is exactly how they've been working, so it's good information to act on. Nice spin there, NYT.

Flasch186
08-03-2004, 03:02 PM
Just read it in full, and I find it to be anythign but historcal information. It talks about Bin LAden's plans for the future, starting with the first attempts near the milennium celebration, and since 9/11 was just around the corner I certainly dont see this as not being prudent. You talk like it was the 70's. ALl of this stuff is prudent and Im glad they let it be transparent and let the people know, if they didnt we'd have to have another comission. I understand the argument about the political spin but in my view the admin. has no choice but to let this stuff come out.

thanks for showing me that it was aired out, too bad it took a congressional hearing to have it happen.

HerRealName
08-03-2004, 04:30 PM
I know it's the hip thing to distrust the government now, but I refuse to believe that any administration would be using this information for some weird political game, or to keep us afraid.

As much as I would like to agree with you, the closing remarks of the Sunday press conference sound like a political ad. Now that we know the information was 3 years old and not a direct result of the Presiden't leadership as stated, I question why the following was included at all.


I certainly realize that this is sobering news, not just about the intent of our enemies, but of their specific plans and a glimpse into their methods. But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President’s leadership in the war against terror. The reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home

Maybe they were just off the cuff remarks but at best they are misleading and at worst a complete lie.

Glengoyne
08-03-2004, 05:12 PM
Maybe they were just off the cuff remarks but at best they are misleading and at worst a complete lie.

The information became available because some terrorists were arrested after a twelve hour shoot out with Pakastani Authorities. Pakastani authorities are assisting the United States in the fight against terrorism. How is that a lie or even misleading?

Dutch
08-03-2004, 05:39 PM
It's not a lie or misleading. But it's still an election year so the Dems have to try!

HerRealName
08-03-2004, 06:26 PM
Dang, I guess I really should have read the linked article instead of relying on the Yahoo! article I read earlier today. Nevermind.

Dutch
08-03-2004, 07:15 PM
Just read it in full, and I find it to be anythign but historcal information. It talks about Bin LAden's plans for the future, starting with the first attempts near the milennium celebration, and since 9/11 was just around the corner I certainly dont see this as not being prudent. You talk like it was the 70's. ALl of this stuff is prudent and Im glad they let it be transparent and let the people know, if they didnt we'd have to have another comission. I understand the argument about the political spin but in my view the admin. has no choice but to let this stuff come out.

thanks for showing me that it was aired out, too bad it took a congressional hearing to have it happen.

Wait a second, I almost missed this the first time. Are you actually letting something slide without bashing President Bush or his administration? This can't be!

MrBug708
08-03-2004, 07:17 PM
Isn't this kinda old news since terrorist attacks happened in NYC already once?

JW
08-03-2004, 07:39 PM
The story's first paragraph is simply NYT propaganda. As simple as that. Read the 2nd and 3rd paragraph and you get closer to the truth. The surveillance is up to four years old, which is actually very scary. Their 'first team' plans things for years, very meticulously. One could infer that they have all the intell they need for an attack. And couple that info with more recent info and you have every reason to be alarmed. And there are some things not mentioned in the NYT article -- guess they just forgot -- like the recent arrest of a woman with terrorist ties trying to cross the border from Mexico with $7000 and headed toward NYC. Wonder why they left that out.

But this is simply typical leftist response. They have a good formula, which goes like this:
1. If a terror warning is issued, it is simply politically motivated.
2. If a terror warning is not issued, it reflects a lack of vigilance (when the info is later leaked to the media).
3. If a terrorist attack does not occur, it shows the danger is exagerrated.
4. If a terrorist attack does occur, it shows the war on terror is a failure.
They simply plug in the appropriate response to the appropriate situation.

Flasch186
08-03-2004, 11:58 PM
Wait a second, I almost missed this the first time. Are you actually letting something slide without bashing President Bush or his administration? This can't be!


Im not letting it slide...i think his admin, on this subject, is doing the right thing. If you ever take the time to read most of my posts they have to do with honesty and transparency. I believe that those two things are the two most important things there is, so....here it is, they got some info, maybe it isnt a big deal, maybe it is, but they have to put it out there.

PsychoCop
08-04-2004, 04:28 AM
Them terrorists would never dare touch New jersey... else they face the wrath of... TONY SOPRANO!

duckman
08-04-2004, 01:45 PM
NoMyths=Michael Moore

NoMyths
08-04-2004, 02:13 PM
NoMyths=Michael MooreDo tell. :rolleyes:

Bee
08-04-2004, 02:15 PM
I always imagined NM as looking like Diane Lane...usually typing with no clothes...but hey, that's just me. :D

Butter
08-04-2004, 03:24 PM
I know it's the hip thing to distrust the government now,

It's only hip if your side's not in power.

SackAttack
08-04-2004, 03:36 PM
NoMyths=Michael Moore

Off-topic, slightly, but this reminded me that I just found out yesterday that Michael Moore did "Canadian Bacon," which has long been one of my favorite movies. And then you have his last two fillms which have been shameless, self-serving attempts at political manipulation.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I can't help thinking that if Moore really wanted to send an effective message with his films, instead of preaching to the converted, wouldn't honest-to-goodness satire be a more effective medium than his whole "documentary" schtick?

duckman
08-04-2004, 03:57 PM
It's only hip if your side's not in power.
That is SO true.

Ksyrup
08-04-2004, 04:16 PM
Maybe I'm alone here, but I can't help thinking that if Moore really wanted to send an effective message with his films, instead of preaching to the converted, wouldn't honest-to-goodness satire be a more effective medium than his whole "documentary" schtick?
I think the stealth by which he could accomplish that is offset by the amount of publicity he gets for doing it this way. I loved Canadian Bacon, and I also loved his Fox show, when he basically was doing a Daily Show-type program. When he decided that politics was far more important than entertainment, that's when I stopped watching.

Leonidas
08-04-2004, 08:25 PM
Latest from CNN puts this alert on a little bit faster, more timely track than the NYT would like us to think. Yeah, I'd call this a legit threat.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/04/terror.threat/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence found in Pakistan suggests that suspected al Qaeda operatives in that country contacted an individual or individuals in the United States in the past few months, according to two senior U.S. government sources.

The officials would not characterize the nature of the communication.

But the sources said other information from Pakistan has prompted investigations in the United States to uncover whether there are any individuals or terrorist cells plotting an attack on U.S. soil.

In addition, two senior Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN that there is evidence at least six individuals in the United States were contacted by Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, an alleged al Qaeda operative who was recently taken into custody in Pakistan. U.S. officials have not confirmed that information.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Aboard Air Force One that two intelligence streams "came to light more fully" last Friday. The first dealt with Khan and the other dealt with an undisclosed threat.

"I can't go further into it because it could compromise some ongoing operations at this point," McClellan said.

He noted, "When you connect all these streams of intelligence, it paints an alarming picture."

Without mentioning Khan by name, McClellan said the suspected al Qaeda operative "had computer files with very detailed and specific information about some of al Qaeda's intentions."

"This is an active al Qaeda operative who we know has ties to other al Qaeda operatives who are involved in plotting to carry out attacks against the American people," McClellan said.

It was Khan's arrest and documents in his possession that sparked this week's increased threat levels in Washington, New Jersey and New York, U.S. officials said. (Full story)

Khan is a computer expert suspected of helping Osama bin Laden communicate with his terror network, U.S. government sources said. Pakistani officials said the man's identity cannot be confirmed because he has used multiple aliases.

U.S. sources said Khan told interrogators al Qaeda uses Web sites and e-mail addresses in Turkey, Nigeria and tribal areas of Pakistan to pass messages among themselves.

Couriers were often used to deliver computer discs, and the suspect would then post the messages on Web sites, but only briefly, the sources said.

According to the sources, after messages were sent and read, the files were deleted.

E-mail addresses were used only two or three times; if the information was really sensitive, an address might be used only once.

The U.S. sources allege Khan assisted in the evaluation of potential targets and served as a "clearinghouse" of information. He told investigators that he does not know where bin Laden is hiding, the sources said.

They said Khan's father facilitated a lot of his international travel, but they do not think the father knew what his son was doing.

Much of the surveillance of possible terror targets in the three U.S. cities took place before September 11, 2001, but there was an indication of reconnaissance updates as recently as January, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

"We know from the way al Qaeda does business, including on the 9/11 attacks, that they do their homework well in advance, then they update it just before they launch an attack," said Frances Fragos Townsend, a homeland security adviser to President Bush.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said some of the information was updated earlier this year but that "there's no evidence of recent surveillance."

Neither Ridge nor Townsend said how much information was updated in January.

A senior military U.S. official said a computer seized from Khan contained hundreds of images, including photographs, drawings and layouts of various potential U.S. targets. (Full story)

Some of the photos were years old, while others had been taken as recently as the past few months, the official said. Some images showed underground garages, leading to the conclusion those areas had been under surveillance.

But the information did not include details of any specific plot or time.

"These reports are extraordinarily detailed," Townsend said. "These individuals clearly had access; they were inside this country, inside these targets, crawling all over them, making sure they understood those buildings."

Pakistani 'breakthrough' touted
In Britain, police questioned 12 men Wednesday on suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities. They were arrested Tuesday as a result of information that Pakistani authorities said they shared with their British counterparts.

British police declined to confirm how they learned of the dozen suspects, but senior Pakistani intelligence officials said Khan told interrogators that there was a terror cell in Britain and that he frequently relayed messages from Pakistan to its leader.

The Pakistani officials said the leader described by Khan was among those arrested in Britain. Scotland Yard has said the arrests were part of a "preplanned, ongoing intelligence-led operation."

Pakistani Information Minister Rashid Ahmad said that Pakistani security forces also had captured "valuable people" who provided "valuable information."

"It is a great achievement of our security forces," Ahmad said. "It is a great breakthrough in the al Qaeda network."

Ahmad would not reveal any other information, saying it was "best not to say too much."

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani -- a Tanzanian arrested in Pakistan last week in connection with al Qaeda's bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 -- also provided "very important" information, Ahmad said Monday.

In addition, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said seven more suspected al Qaeda members have been taken into custody since Ghailani's arrest -- including one who was trying to leave the country Monday.

SackAttack
08-04-2004, 08:52 PM
I think the stealth by which he could accomplish that is offset by the amount of publicity he gets for doing it this way. I loved Canadian Bacon, and I also loved his Fox show, when he basically was doing a Daily Show-type program. When he decided that politics was far more important than entertainment, that's when I stopped watching.

Okay, he gets the publicity this way, but he polarizes his audience. Let's say before he had around, say, 50 million people watching his movies, from both sides of the aisle. Some would agree with him, some wouldn't, but the delivery vehicle for his message didn't immediately offend people who might otherwise be inclined to take his arguments seriously. Instead, this way, he gets half that, more publicity, but also solidifies the animosity/sycophancy from either side of the aisle. His impact is grossly limited, although his earning power may increase as a result.

Somehow, I suspect for Moore it's less about deeply held political beliefs, and more about the earning power.

SackAttack
08-04-2004, 08:53 PM
Dola,

don't mean to threadjack. Just wanted to comment on that. Your regular programming will now commence.

rexallllsc
08-04-2004, 09:34 PM
Yeah, I mean, they didn't try and take down the WTC twice or anything. These are old. They must not be relevant.

Buddy Grant
08-04-2004, 10:58 PM
<Wiggum>I'd rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them.</Wiggum>

Flasch186
08-05-2004, 09:24 AM
watched Bill Maher last night, and they had moore on there with the Congressman from California, a republican. While Moore obviously likes the public attention, Nader likes it more, and that is obvious. BUT why is it that when someone, ie. Kerry changes his opinion on something, hes a flip flopper, but just like the congressman said, if he could get moore or Maher to change sides they would be welcomed (and im sure heavily publicized) is that not flip flopping? The PM from Canada was great when explaining how Bush, and any leader, should be able to learn from their mistakes.