Failing to Report

This story shows a very dangerous mishandling of intelligence information, but the reporting is so awful that I can't tell at whom I should direct my anger.

Under pressure to justify the alerts in three Northeastern cities, U.S. officials confirmed a report by The New York Times that the man, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was the source of the intelligence that led to the decision.

Is 'under pressure to justify' one of those editorial comments that journalists throw in, or does it reflect direct information that the journalist obtained? By that I mean did they learn this information from a call beginning something like "You guys are crazy about this stupid speculation that the terror report was politically motivated becasue..." or is the journalist just guessing even though the journalist began the conversation with something along the lines "Do you confirm the NYT report that the information was from..."

The proper way to interpret that paragraph isn't made clear by the journalist, and the two interpretations make for vastly different judgments of the Administration.

This is completely unhelpful too:

A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters on Friday that Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.

Monday evening, after Khan’s name appeared, Pakistani officials moved him to a secret location.

Here we have a non-informative passive voice. Did Khan's name 'appear' because of the journalist digging up information from a Pakistani source and then publishing it either with the knowledge that he would be putting the man's life in danger and destroying a critical source, or with the reckless disregard of the possibility? Or did the Bush Administration do that? Who knows? (Well some reporters know but they aren't telling us). The name just 'appeared'.

The Times published a story Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts. The Times identified him as Khan, although it did not say how it had learned his name.

'A man arrested in Pakistan' is probably plenty vague enough not to burn a source. 'Khan', however, is not. But do we find out how the Times knew to say 'Khan'? Of course not. Was it the U.S. officials? Was it the Pakistani source? Who knows? Mere readers sure don't.

U.S. officials subsequently confirmed the name to other news organizations Monday morning. None of the reports mentioned that Khan was working under cover at the time, helping to catch al-Qaida suspects.

Is this before or after Khan was whisked away to a secret location? Who knows? You might think you know because the confirmation took place in 'the morning', and the hiding took place in 'the evening'. But the confirmation took place in Washington D.C. while the hiding took place in Pakistan, a nine hour time difference. So if the confirmation took place at say 10:00 a.m. in Washington D.C. (morning) the hiding could have taken place before the confirmation but at 6:30 p.m. in Pakistan (evening).

Does the reporter know which took place first? Quite probably. Does he bother to tell us? Nope.

So we can have a huge range of perfectly legitimate reactions based on facts that could have been clearly reported, but were not. And that pisses me off, because I can't even tell who I should be pissed of at.

Comments

[Anarch]

This story shows a very dangerous mishandling of intelligence information, but the reporting is so awful that I can't tell at whom I should direct my anger.

That seems to be a pretty common reaction, actually...

[rilkefan]

Excellent post. More like this, please.

[JC]

Good points.

I still can't get my head around this. I'm still scratching my head - somehow this doesn't make sense. I'm not at the point where I believe the Bush administration would blow cover intentionally on such a valuable asset, even in the face of what looked like a bad political storm due to the terror warning.

Was the cover already blown?
Is part of this story Pakistani ISI leaks, and wheels within wheels, as I've seen mentioned elsewhere?

It just doesn't seem to add up.

[Jesurgislac]

JC: I'm not at the point where I believe the Bush administration would blow cover intentionally on such a valuable asset, even in the face of what looked like a bad political storm due to the terror warning.

Someone senior in the Bush administration outed a covert CIA operative last year - and Bush's reaction was (a) do nothing for nearly 3 months (b) admit that it was a bad thing when and only when the DoJ started the investigation (c) assert that the perpetrator most likely wouldn't be caught.

Well. Somehow I'm unsurprised (mad as hell, but not surprised) that the Bush administration have created a climate where outing undercover operatives is just fine, if you've got a political reason to do it. They did it before, no one got fired, why not do it again?

Valerie Plame was a "valuable asset", too.

[Jesurgislac]

Actually, quick back-track - I hadn't (when I wrote the above) read this New York Times article. No excuses, I just hadn't.

From that it looks like that the Pakistanis outed this operative's name - though several "senior American officials" seem to have been pretty loose-mouthed about how important he was.

So ignore comments relating to Valerie Plame above - I shouldn't have made them, they're irrelevant to the current situation.

[wilfred]

there's some interesting info over at juan cole for those who want to check it out.
http://juancole.com/

[Dave sSchuler]

What do they teach in schools these days? That isn't passive voice. But it's pretty darned non-specific and I agree with you nonetheless.

[Dave Schuler]

Unless, of course, you mean "was arrested" rather than "appeared"? In which case, never mind.

[hilzoy]

The NYT article linked above seems to me to suggest the following scenario: First, there seem to have been a briefing on Sunday that included extensive discussion of the fact that someone whose arrest had not been announced had provided key information that led to the alert, and also of the nature of that information.

"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."

Then the NYT found out his name; how, we do not know; and they published it. But at this stage there is no suggestion that he is operating as a double agent. It would be interesting to know whether any of the American officials the Times contacted alerted it to this fact: newspapers have, in the past, been willing to hold off on stories for just this sort of reason. It would also be interesting to know whether the Times asked about this.

Then Pakistani officials confirmed the name, and became much more forthcoming about his intelligence value.

And the fact that he, apparently unlike most other al Qaeda captives, was willing to turn only came out later.

Two things strike me about this. The first is that the Sunday briefing, even if it did not disclose Khan's name, was irresponsible. It seems to have included both the fact of a previously undisclosed arrest in Pakistan and detail about what information the arrest had produced. This information would not have led any of us to draw conclusions about who had been arrested, but I would think it might well have led people in al Qaeda to do so -- after all, how many people in Pakistan with access to this sort of information about al Qaeda's reconnaissance, communications, etc., can there be? And if an al Qaeda mamber read an article based on this briefing and then got an email from Khan, would he not wonder whether Khan had been turned?

The second is that it would be important to learn whether the Times, or anyone else, was warned off this story lest they compromise ongoing antiterror operations; and if not, why not, and why the Times did not ask about that possibility. If the Times was warned off and published anyways, that's shameful. If they were not warned off, then regardless of whether or not they should have asked, the people who didn't warn them off should be fired. If the Times did not ask, then again, that's shameful, unless the circumstances were such that they might reasonably have assumed an answer. The only such circumstances that leap to mind are: an administration official leaks the information to them, in which case the assumption that the administration does not have any reason to object to this info being published might be a reasonable one.

So much for my attempts to parse the NYT. I'm glad Sebastian picked this up; I had thought about posting on it, but Kevin Drum captured each and every one of my conflicting responses so well that I really had nothing to add.

[hilzoy]

And speaking of leaking classified intelligence information: I assume most people here saw that Richard Shelby seems to have leaked classified information to Fox News. Hullaballoo provides context here.

[hilzoy]

I didn't watch Wolf Blitzer, so I don't know if this synopsis from Juan Cole is accurate:

"On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the Americans for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of Usamah Bin Laden himself!"

Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for the Pakistani government. (!!!)

If it is, however, then some of Sebastian's questions have just been answered.