Alerting Bin Laden's Compatriots (ABC): Al Qaeda Goes Dark Thanks to Network

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
October 9, 2007 - 10:48 ET

The New York Sun's Eli Lake is reporting this morning that "Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence" following "the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that" American intelligence agencies "had penetrated the enemy's system."

You can thank ABC News for that. According to Lake:

...the disclosure from ABC and later other news organizations tipped off Qaeda's internal security division that the organization's Internet communications system, known among American intelligence analysts as Obelisk, was compromised. This network of Web sites serves not only as the distribution system for the videos produced by Al Qaeda's production company, As-Sahab, but also as the equivalent of a corporate intranet, dealing with such mundane matters as expense reporting and clerical memos to mid- and lower-level Qaeda operatives throughout the world.

Lake went on to quote an anonymous intelligence officer lamenting that "We lost an important keyhole into the enemy."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt goes further, attacking the leakers for a "An Astonishing and Sickening Breach of Trust," wondering, "What will it take for people to realize that it is a war, not a game or a campaign?"

Of course it's not just the leaker but the leakee that has moral culpability for potential lives lost due to the intelligence failures that may result here. But then again, is it that surprising coming from ABC, a network whose news chief once famously waxed agnostice over whether the Pentagon was a legitimate military target for our enemies. David Westin did eventually apologize, although Westin didn't exactly become a "patriot first, journalist second." After all, ABC policy still frowns on the U.S. flag pin as an unnecessary and suspect sartorial accessory.

As my colleague Scott Whitlock noted on October 5:

On Friday's "Good Morning America," ABC reporter David Wright narrated a sympathetic look at Barack Obama's decision not to wear an American flag lapel pin and asserted that this country's "obsession with flag pins is relatively new." To further defend the Democratic presidential candidate, Wright pointedly noted that liberal bogeyman Richard Nixon wore such a pin. He observed, "Ike didn't wear one. JFK either. Nixon did wear the flag as he told the American people he had nothing to do with Watergate."

Of course, Wright himself was not wearing a pin with the U.S. flag on it. As the MRC has previously noted, ABC President David Westin banned on-air talent from having such pins adorn their lapels. In 2003, he deemed it the "patriotic duty" of reporters not to display the flag. At a journalist conference, he elaborated that "after 9/11, the question came up and we, as a matter of policy at ABC News, tell our people on the air, you shall not wear an American flag or any other symbol on the air."

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry I lost you after Blah blah blah

October 9, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Mistah Bitterman

Of course the MSM will try to pin this on the white house, which I have seen them do already on a couple of other sights. If there's something wrong in America, it's Bushes fault. Will the madness never end. I'm not surprised

Yes they Will

October 9, 2007 - 11:01 ET by allanf

You are correct, see the Fox News Story, White House Denies It Was Source of Bin Laden Video Leak
.

Probably the CIA.  They

October 9, 2007 - 16:21 ET by BD

Probably the CIA.  They leak worse than the Titanic on ice.

American News Organizations

October 9, 2007 - 10:59 ET by allanf

Brett Stephens in todays Wall Street Journal quoted the economist a saying:

It all but goes without saying that torture, properly defined and in nearly every circumstance, is wrong. But what do you make of the following statement, from a recent editorial in the Economist: "Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavory practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it"?

To the liberal elitests, an abstract notion of freedom is more important than its defense.

Heck, allanf..

October 9, 2007 - 13:55 ET by Gary Hall

Heck, allanf.. I think even Al Gore said it just about as well -- (how soon they forget. My Bold):

[This from White House intelligence advisor Richard Clarke's book]

RICHARD CLARKE - Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

And shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to establish the US program of extroadinary rendition (PDD#39); the idea being that we could ship them off to you know who in Egypt - so that they could be tortured to get information out of them.

Treason. Tipping off our

October 9, 2007 - 11:18 ET by rbosque

Treason. Tipping off our enemies is definately "aiding" them.

And the Republican wussies

October 9, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Sonny Lykos

And the Republican wussies in Congress and the White House will do nothing.

So ABC aids the enemy. Will the JD do anything THIS TIME?

October 9, 2007 - 11:28 ET by Dave R

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it is long past time the Bush "Justice Department" took a break from prosecuting conservatives and Border Patrol agents and perhaps made an effort to make an example out of one of these clowns.

These leaks are clearly designed to aid the efforts of our enemies in this war, and they are a constantly recurring problem. I am sick of seeing the actors in these incidents walking the streets.

If the Bush administration is really serious about the GWOT, they need to act, as I am beginning to suspect that Mr. Bush is not as up to the task at hand as they have been telling us.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

ABC - on your sleeve..

October 9, 2007 - 11:35 ET by Gary Hall

Davit Wright: "..as a matter of policy at ABC News, tell our people on the air, you shall not wear an American flag or any other symbol on the air."

I must have missed the last part of his statement: On the other hand... our reporters and anchors are free to continue to wear your liberal agenda and media bias on your sleeve.

of course NB sights ABC has

October 9, 2007 - 12:20 ET by katlee

of course NB sights ABC has the main culprit, when in fact, FOX News had it up on their website before anybody else, even crediting SITE Intelligence Group - and yes, of course, it came from the white house, where else? it's their usual MO - keep us afraid, keep us very afraid -
I find it incredible that anyone can believe ANYTHING this white house says anymore

IS THIS TRUE?!?!?!? or just

October 9, 2007 - 12:29 ET by TruthMonger

IS THIS TRUE?!?!?!?

or just another troll dropping?

A service of the new NB respect police

Actually,

October 9, 2007 - 12:39 ET by dervish

the NY Sun says ABC published excerpts of OBL's speech on the morning of Sept. 7, and even the Washington Post (who of course blames Fox News) says FNC didn't put it out until the afternoon.

You can decide who's telling the truth. Oh wait, you already did.

How do you know it "came from the White House"?

This would hard for ABC to

October 9, 2007 - 15:25 ET by curious

This would hard for ABC to do if, as the owner of SITE says, she only contacted the WH at 10AM on the morning of the 7th.

All I know is what I read in the papers.

October 9, 2007 - 15:58 ET by dervish

"On the morning of September 7, the Web site of ABC News posted excerpts from the speech."

From the NY Sun article, 2nd paragraph. Should be easy enough to disprove.

But as you say, "if." 

"it's their usual MO - keep

October 9, 2007 - 13:21 ET by ckc1227

"it's their usual MO - keep us afraid, keep us very afraid -I find it incredible that anyone can believe ANYTHING this white house says anymore"

Afraid of what? There's nothing to be afraid of. It's all made up.
There aren't really any terrorists who want to destroy this country,
and who want to spread their form of Islam across the world.

It's all a lie so Bush can win in 2008......

Not that I'm saying it is....

October 9, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Prester John

....but I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing about a "leak" is nothing more than some clever disinformation courtesy of your U.S. Government. 

During the Cold War, James Angleton, head of counter-intelligence at the CIA, spoke of operating in the intel world as being in a "Wilderness of Mirrors".  In this age of the Internet the potential for mischieve in this area during a time of war is unlimited.

I would not be too quick to jump on ABC, the White House or anyone else, because none of us really knows what is going on behind the scenes.

There's certainly...

October 9, 2007 - 14:52 ET by dervish

...more to the story than the simple version being tossed around.

(Jawa link stolen from LGF.)

I'm curious: the account I

October 9, 2007 - 15:22 ET by curious

I'm curious: the account I read in the morning paper clearly says that Rita Katz, the owner of the private intelligence service who initially offered the photos at issue to the White House, blames the government for leaking the story and ruining her access to further intell. In the story Katz says she emailed Fred Fielding and Michael Leiter, the number 2 at the National Counterintell Center at 10AM the morning of Sept 7. In the email she explicitly and more than once emphasized the highly secret nature of her offering and asked that the WH keep a lid on it. Fielding got right back to her, thanking her. But within minutes of her sending her email she says govt registered computers began downloading the photos from her server. Her records show dozens of such downloads over the next three hours by defense and intell addresses. By midafternoon several news organizations reported having the photos, and at 3PM the copy available at the FOX site included page markers identical to those used by her company.

Now I don't know the whole story, and somebody here likely has more to contribute, but this story clearly blames the WH for the leak, and it was FOX and not ABC that is mentioned by name as having a copy of the original.

Are you sure of your facts. 

 

Shadow party in action

October 9, 2007 - 16:23 ET by nofate

curious:  what I get from all I have been able to read so far, including this from Hugh Hewitt:

 

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.

I may have missed it, but just who the hell were those "senior officials" who promised not to release the tape?  At least one of them is guilty of a collosal breach of security.  Just speculating, but might that be due to an agenda in conflict with the Bush administration and more in line with the liberal concept of "security"?  Just wondering.  Either way, this is outrageous.  These two officials should be the top news story and their interrogations should be ongoing and never ending until the facts are uncovered.  A lot of people are probably going to die as a result of this.  And outlets like the Huffington Post try to blame it on Bush.  Yes it did come from the White House, but does anyone really think that Bush ordered this released?  Unfortunately, yes.  How come this is the first time we have heard of this? 

 

Update (prior to this even getting posted), from Powerline:

 

UPDATE: Rusty Shackleford persuasively argues that SITE was not the source of the leaked video transcript and that al Qaeda was not prompted to go dark by the alleged leak described by the Sun (and the Washington Post). Eli Lake writes us in response to Shackleford's post:

I don't think they got the video before SITE. Both posted it that afternoon. Also, I wrote that the USG watches the Obelisk system and had it pretty well penetrated, something the Post missed in their zeal to turn this into a Bush White House blunder. Listen, yes, of course they have other back rooms, of course they have other sites, but my understanding is that we don't know them now. Is our entire ability to watch Obelisk degraded? No. But a lot of it is.

 

This is not just about sucking the pipes. Part of the genius of the Qaeda system is that it exists throughout the web, and can change locations almost immediately. Also, SITE does something that Mansfield does not. Mansfield monitors the uploading fileserver sites, hence she gets As Sahab videos when the public jihadi websites do. Katz and for that matter others in the US intel community have spent years persuading online jihadists that they are themselves aspiring operatives, gaining the passwords and user names, not to mention the access to known operative emails, in order to get their access.

I know it's hard to believe that a private firm could be better than our entire intel community, but this is not an operation that requires technical brilliance so much as good knowledge of online salafi culture and cunning.

Unfreakingbelievable!

 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

http://www.michaelyon-online.com

On another issue: why did

October 9, 2007 - 15:44 ET by curious

On another issue: why did you feel it nesessary to whine again about the wearing of flag pins? Hoping to tar by innuendo and bogus issues? That's weak.

BTW: there is many a true patriot who doesn't feel it necessary to wear his patriotism on his sleeve. Not to disparage in any sense those who chose to do so, but there is also quiet strenght and resolve in chosing not to. NOBODY who knows me would ever question my patriotism, and I proudly fly my flag on appropriate days. To accuse someone of a lack of patriotism because they chose not to wear a flag pin is not only ignorant and weak, but flat out cowardly.

And while on the point of pins: remember all those Adam Smith pins the Reaganite supply siders used to wear so proudly, and without a clue as to the irony of their doing so. Literally, idiots wearing their ignorance for all to see.

Ken, Who leaked it to

October 9, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Leon

Ken,

Who leaked it to ABC? 

That's right!  You guessed it...the Bush Administration!

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.

Through one year of hard work, SITE Intelligence Group was able to penetrate Al Qaeda's internet operations.  They were able to intercept the most recent Osama video prior to its official release.

So what happened when they told the Bush Admin?  They did was they always do...LEAKED! 

According to SITE's founder this is a disaster:  "Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder."

I thought we were trying to WIN the war on terror.  Guess not!

A wise man is quick to listen and slow to speak

October 10, 2007 - 02:17 ET by Johnnye B

Leon,

You might want to read this now that you have made a fool of yourself. Once again. http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/archives/2007/10/10/#009477

Thanks for that

October 10, 2007 - 09:14 ET by nofate

Thanks for that JB.  There is more good info there than I have been able to come up with.  But now, if one of the guys in the WH is not the leaker, if I understand Mudville correctly, then who is?  Someone @ CIA?  Sounds like we're really getting into some spooky stuff here and someone with an agenda is busy trying to pull another twisted operation off to make the WH look guilty, i.e. Wilson/Plame, NYT leaks of islamofascist financial records, etc.  Bizarro world exists.  

 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

http://www.michaelyon-online.com

B D S Jimbo says -

October 10, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Jimbo

B D S

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"