Leak Severed a Link to Al-Qaeda's Secrets
Firm Says Administration's Handling of Video Ruined Its Spying Efforts

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; Page A01

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.

The precise source of the leak remains unknown. Government officials declined to be interviewed about the circumstances on the record, but they did not challenge Katz's version of events. They also said the incident had no effect on U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts and did not diminish the government's ability to anticipate attacks.

While acknowledging that SITE had achieved success, the officials said U.S. agencies have their own sophisticated means of watching al-Qaeda on the Web. "We have individuals in the right places dealing with all these issues, across all 16 intelligence agencies," said Ross Feinstein, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But privately, some intelligence officials called the incident regrettable, and one official said SITE had been "tremendously helpful" in ferreting out al-Qaeda secrets over time.

rest of article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html?hpid=topnews)

Is there a 'private club' mentality in Washington as regards Intel gathering,or has some glory hunter seized the moment?

Both.

just another shot at the administration by Sedan, nothing new.

just another shot at the administration by Sedan, nothing new.Yes, well, what's a few more shots to this administration -- it already leaks like a sieve.

But there's more to it than that. For starters, take a look at this paragraph:

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

So now a source for advance warnings of suicide bombings has been bollixed. What good are such warnings, you might ask? Well, they might just save a few lives, you never know. Freaking great job there, eh? But for you, even talking about it is just "taking another shot at the administration". Good on you, Trav. :rolleyes:

That's bad enough, but the other reason I posted this is because I was wondering what the reaction might have been if this story had been about another administration, say a Clinton one. What do you think your reaction would have been then? What do you think the Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the FoxNewslies would be saying about such a story?

Here's my guess: they'd be plastering it across the airwaves of America, screaming to the high heavens how incompetent and how treasonous the villains are who allowed such a thing to happen. And I also am guessing someone like yourself would post the story here, and there would be pages upon pages of vitriol lavished upon the perpetrators of this heinous crime.

But -- because it is THIS administration that committed the leak -- we see no such hue and cry across this great land. We will see no venom spilled upon the pages of allForums. We will get instead only a few stories in print that are quickly forgotten, and nary a whisper of condemnation from the right-wing posters amongst us.

To borrow a phrase from FT ... liberal media my ass.

Here. Here.

so lets get this out in the open right now, are leaks good or bad?

so lets get this out in the open right now, are leaks good or bad?That all depends, of course.

It looks like this one happened because someone wanted their department or agency to appear "on the ball". That's a terrible reason to compromise an intelligence asset. OTOH, leaks that expose government wrongdoing are generally a good thing, IMO.

Nice answer.

so leaks that support your position are good, leaks that don't are bad. Got it.

so leaks that support your position are good, leaks that don't are bad. Got it.

:rolleyes: Stop being ridiculous.

just another shot at the administration by Sedan, nothing new.

I doubt it's blameable on the admin but whatever numbnut ran his yak to ABC ought to be brought up on charges.

:rolleyes: Stop being ridiculous.

have you ever seen him outraged any of the other hundred leaks that have comeout in the past few years?

have you ever seen him outraged any of the other hundred leaks that have comeout in the past few years?

Why are you trying to turn this into a partisan issue? You're not upset that we blew a link into al-Qaeda?

have you ever seen him outraged any of the other hundred leaks that have comeout in the past few years?

So what. When someone screws up it's important that they own it. That's not to say that the admin screwed the pooch. Given the timeline this stuff was over and done before the the big shots had a chance to think about it. But someone, for whatever reason, certainly did and they should be hung out to dry.

Why are you trying to turn this into a partisan issue? You're not upset that we blew a link into al-Qaeda?

I dont like leaks, and I am upset, but as far as forum related goes, i call out hypocrisy. that's all.

Fuck it,fone a plumber.

Fuck it,fone a plumber.Don't call the wrong ones, though. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Plumbers

I dont like leaks, and I am upset, but as far as forum related goes, i call out hypocrisy. that's all.What hypocrisy have you called out?

Are the only allowable positions "all leaks are good" or "all leaks are bad"?

Somethings never change.

So what. When someone screws up it's important that they own it. That's not to say that the admin screwed the pooch. Given the timeline this stuff was over and done before the the big shots had a chance to think about it. But someone, for whatever reason, certainly did and they should be hung out to dry.I'm inclined to agree -- it looks like a mid-level management error.

Thanks for your rational response. :)

What hypocrisy have you called out?

Are the only allowable positions "all leaks are good" or "all leaks are bad"?

no, its just that I never saw you concerned about the leaks that shine a bad light on Bush and his buddies.

no, its just that I never saw you concerned about the leaks that shine a bad light on Bush and his buddies.Umm ... this is a leak that shines a bad light on the administration.

Never mind, I know what you meant. I still don't see the hypocrisy though. Some leaks can serve a good purpose. Others, like this one, are just plain bad. One need not be a hypocrite to see things this way.

Trav's just as biased anyway...

It seems that any leak that dosent show the Administration as competant is a bad thing.