Al-Qaeda terrorists came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with a lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps. They were stopped not by any intelligence breakthrough, but by an order from Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri. And the U.S. learned of the plot from a CIA mole inside al-Qaeda. These are some of the more startling revelations by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose new book The One Percent Doctrine is excerpted in the forthcoming issue of TIME....Why are Suskind (and Time) revealing that we have a source in al Qaeda? If al Qaeda breaks into chaos at the news, maybe they'll start killing each other -- or just every guy named "Ali" -- but I don't see how it's Suskind's call. Did the government approve of this disclosure? Is it even true? It might be good disinformation. What am I missing?
U.S. intelligence got its first inkling of the plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini jihadist captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. It contained plans for a gas-dispersal system dubbed "the mubtakkar" (Arabic for inventive). Fearing that al-Qaeda's engineers had achieved the holy grail of terror R&D — a device to effectively distribute hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled — the CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which comprised two separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken by a remote trigger, producing the gas for dispersal. The prototype confirmed their worst fears: "In the world of terrorist weaponry," writes Suskind, "this was the equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available chemicals, and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot – and then kill everyone in the store."
"The equivalent of splitting the atom"? "The holy grail of terror R&D"? But "you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot"? Is it easy or hard? What's so amazing about a container with two compartments? It can't be the potential for a remote switch. There's no genius involved in thinking of the two chemicals, is there? That's basically how they set up the gas chamber they used to use in California, isn't it?
The CIA tested the design and was impressed by how... mubtakkar it was? Is that a trick to get them to build it and off themselves, Weatherman-style?
Posts
7 comments:
"Why are Suskind (and Time) revealing that we have a source in al Qaeda?"
Same old, same old. Mary McCarthy is a hero; Scooter is a horrible criminal. Do the math.
Dear number: This post isn't about whether something is legal or not. The law is not the beginning and end of the question whether something is wrong.
Before I comment on the post itself...:
"The law is not the beginning and end of the question whether something is wrong."
Bravo! I'm glad someone's saying that. That this statement comes from a law prof really lends weight to the statement. I know that sentiment should be an obvious one, but too many times people fall back on arguments of authority and hold the law as also being the final moral judgement. That's not always the case.
---------
At first, I was shocked at the identification of an intelligence source too. But if the author's source for that info was in the CIA itself (the article seems to imply that), isn't it possible that the source is now beyond harm? Either that the mole is now somewhere safe, or conversely is now dead? I find it a little unlikely that an intelligence organization would be so free with information unless they knew there would be no ill effects from it.
Then again, history has shown that mistakes happen. Anyway... the point is that we don't know, but it's possible that this wasn't an intelligence compromise, that Suskind's source knows there are no problems with releasing the info. I know I hope that's the case, because if it's not, then some serious damage has been done to America's intelligence gathering capacities.
I had the same problem being underwhelmed by the Mubtakkar's technical advances despite Suskind's (patronizing) breathlessness.
Also, when I read the article this morning it had CIA, NSA and WMD all written in lowercase letters--even at the beginnings of sentences. That's been fixed now, but how does that happen in the first place? You're Time freakin' Magazine for crying out loud!
While it's possible that this information was released accidentally or via an irresponsible leak, I'm perfectly willing to assume that the information was intentionally released, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Presumably the source is dead or otherwise in a place where he isn't at risk, or in the alternative, this may be a bluff. One of the most self-destructive things a secretive organization can do is go on a big internal witch hunt for moles. It isn't hard to imagine that our government would want Al-Qaeda to undergo that sort of internal turmoil, and stories like this would help in that process, if the story about the intelligence source is a bluff. In any case, there's plenty of non-harmful explanations for the release of this information, so there's no need for people to assume the worst about the motives of the Ron Suskind or Time Magazine.
They were stopped not by any intelligence breakthrough
Earth to Althouse, this burns you up the most doesn't it. I mean all that torture you have approved of, and it doesn't do squat.
Why are Suskind (and Time) revealing that we have a source in al Qaeda?
Who is this Al Qaeda that you think doesn't know there phone calls are tapped and that they have to worry about moles? Who are these guys that read American papers, but never read or watched a spy movie? Who are these guys that don't worry about tapped phones and moles until we disclose it BUT THAT ORGANIZE THEMSELVES IN CELLS?
Ann, you're making all of this up as you go, right? You ain't this dumb?
I don't see how it's Suskind's call. Did the government approve of this disclosure?
So who's call is it then? Are you calling for prior restraint laws? Is wisc.edu some sort of bizarro world onionesque hoax site?
"The equivalent of splitting the atom"? "The holy grail of terror R&D"? But "you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot"? Is it easy or hard? What's so amazing about a container with two compartments? It can't be the potential for a remote switch. There's no genius involved in thinking of the two chemicals, is there? That's basically how they set up the gas chamber they used to use in California, isn't it?
My guess is that the ability to put together a small reliable device in a manner that does not kill the developers but that does go off reliably when and only when you want it to go off is pretty nice work. the gas chamber may use a similar reaction, but dropping a pellets into a bucket by mechanical levers is not exactly the same as a compact, safe, reliable, deadly, remote controlled device.
But I bow to your tenure.
Yeah, the article is a plant, but then somefeller had to go and spill the beans. I mean, did somefeller have permission to reveal the real story behind the story?
Post a Comment