Posted on 05/18/2002 10:31:35 AM PDT by GeneD
WASHINGTON, May 18 — American intelligence agencies have intercepted a vague yet troubling series of communications among Al Qaeda operatives over the last few months indicating that the terrorist organization is trying to carry out an operation as big as or bigger than the Sept. 11 attacks, according to intelligence and law enforcement officials.
But just as last summer's threats left counterterrorism analysts guessing about Al Qaeda's intentions, and believing that the attack might be carried out overseas, the new interceptions are so general that they have left President Bush and his counterterrorism team in the dark about the time, place or method of what some officials refer to as a second-wave attack. As a result, the government is essentially limited to taking broad defensive measures.
"It's again not specific — not specific as to time, not specific as to place," one senior administration official said.
The officials compared the intercepted messages, which they described as cryptic and ambiguous, to the pattern of those picked up last spring and early summer, when Qaeda operatives were also overheard talking about a big operation. Those signals were among the evidence that intelligence agencies presented to President Bush in August about the possibility of an imminent attack against the United States.
The senior official said Friday that the amount of intelligence relating to another possible attack, in Europe, the Arabian Peninsula or the United States, had increased in the last month. Some of it comes from interviews with fighters captured in Afghanistan.
But despite the disruption of Al Qaeda's operations around the world since Sept. 11, and despite major spending increases and shifts of resources to counterterrorism operations, American officials say they have not been able to fully piece together the clues about Al Qaeda's plans.
"There's just a lot of chatter in the system again," the official said. "We are actively pursuing it and trying to see what's going on here."
The government's frustration underscores the problem in fighting an unconventional foe like Al Qaeda.
Interviews with law enforcement and intelligence officials suggest that in the eight months since Sept. 11 the government has made only limited progress in its ability to predict Al Qaeda's next move, and that many proposed improvements in counterterrorism operations have yet to be put into effect.
This is despite considerable advantages that the United States lacked a year ago. The war in Afghanistan has provided a wealth of new information about Al Qaeda's structure and organization, for example.
In addition, the United States is also interrogating captured Qaeda fighters about the organization's plans. Officials say that debriefings of detainees have in some instances provided general warnings of another major attack that dovetail with the threats picked up in the intercepted communication traffic.
Facing intense criticism in recent days over disclosures that a series of possible clues about Al Qaeda's plans fell through the cracks in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, officials say that some significant changes have been made in the way threat information is studied and circulated within the upper reaches of the Bush administration.
For the first time, the C.I.A. and F.B.I. now compare notes on all terrorist threat information that comes in each day, filtering the intelligence through what they call an analytical "matrix" to determine which threats are the most credible and deserve the most attention. Their daily threat report is distributed to senior policy makers, including the White House director of homeland security, Tom Ridge. It provides a structure for debates among senior officials about whether to issue public threat warnings.
President Bush also now receives daily briefings from both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, are frequently present during those White House sessions. That way, each agency is able to hear the other's latest advice to the president. Before Sept. 11, he received a daily briefing only from the C.I.A.
Although officials say some potential attacks have been foiled, that has been largely credited to the arrest of terrorist operatives overseas by foreign governments rather than to intelligence gleaned from intercepted communications.
United States intelligence officials said that they began to intercept communications among Qaeda operatives discussing a second major attack in October, and that they have detected recurring talk among them about another attack ever since. Some of the intercepted communications have included frightening references to attacks that the Qaeda operatives say would cause vast numbers of American casualties.
The intercepted communications don't point to any detailed plans for an attack, and even the messages mentioning mass casualties don't refer specifically to the use of weapons of mass destruction like chemical, biological or nuclear devices.
Still, American officials say they believe the intercepts represent some of the most credible intelligence they have received since Sept. 11 about Al Qaeda's intentions. They have provided a troubling undercurrent for the Bush administration as it tries to sort through the hundreds of other terrorist threat warnings it has received over the past few months.
The pattern of intercepted communications that began last October has helped prompt at least five public threat alerts issued by the F.B.I. since last fall.
By contrast, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials say they have been skeptical of many of the far more specific threats they have received from individual informants over the past few months. One of the problems now facing American counterterrorism experts is that they say communications intercepts, while vaguely worded, are often highly credible threat warnings, while the very detailed and specific threats passed on by individual informants are often far less reliable.
Individual informants who approach American investigators in the United States or overseas often know what kind of story will get the biggest reaction. They also often come forward because of hidden motives, perhaps hoping for money or entrance into the United States. The C.I.A. routinely gives its informants polygraph tests in an effort to validate their stories.
But officials say that in some cases they have been forced to take tales told by informants more seriously than they otherwise might, at least in part because officials suspect from the intercepted communications that Al Qaeda is planning something big.
In recent months, officials have issued threat alerts regarding nuclear plants, financial institutions and even specific structures like the Seattle Space Needle and the Golden Gate Bridge, even as some counterterrorism experts privately regarded those threats as not based on solid intelligence.
Some officials say the government's new color-coded threat alert system is less useful than the system it replaced, because it is subject to political influences from appointees who are fearful of being criticized if they fail to pass on every possible threat, no matter how remote.
Yet even as the less credible threats have been widely publicized, the more worrisome and credible undercurrent of intercepted communications has not been made public.
In hindsight, analysts now view the pattern of intercepted communications they saw last May, June and July as a sign of the impending attacks. Those intercepts, coming after embassy bombings in Africa and the suicidal bombing of a Navy ship in an Arabian port, were sometimes alarming.
Their references to mass attacks against American interests prompted a series of public alerts against possible terrorist attacks last summer, including one concerning a possible strike over the Fourth of July holiday. Officials said that they never had any evidence that an attack would occur inside the United States, and instead focused most of their attention on possible strikes against American facilities in the Middle East, Europe or Asia.
After the summer holiday passed quietly without any attacks, American analysts were relieved, but still believed that an attack might be coming. However, they lacked any further details of where or when the strike might come, and some officials began to think that the immediate danger might have passed. Now that analysts are seeing a similar pattern of communications intercepts, they say they are determined to avoid a repeat of that mistake.
I'm really impressed by your vernacular. So tell me, who said first:
So, if you want more profiling, you'll end up with government excess, which was the point of my remarks (something which apparently got by you). Why do you not cry out for closing of the borders, a moratorium on immigration, deportation of enemy aliens and even the outlawing of Islam here (instead of welcoming them into the White House, defending and participating in their idolatry)?
You read some government report about the possibility of some ambigious terrorist action, and you cry out to have even more of the Constitution shredded. The only thing that I've seen being blown up recently in this Republic has been our constitutional Rights.
You see to the protection of your own family. Don't ask the government to do it, since they are the ones who will be doing the profiling you asked for. You may regret asking for their help.
You'd be reasonably safe at a White Sox game.
;)
Again, I ask you to go back and read.
Quote me where I asked government to get involved. Go ahead. Find it.
When you have become sufficiently embarrassed by your precipitous comments intended to make you feel omniscient, you may return to get some rational discussion.
From what I've seen of you though, that's not likely. If, however, you can admit your problem in this case, I'm happy to discuss.
If an attack takes place and you have not started to racial profile and deport the foreign students you are HISTORY. If you have started and an attack takes places you will at least be able to say you are trying.
Remember Americans want instant gratification and I suspect this is what they want.
I would expect it is because of people like Daschle, Hillary, McKinney, Lieberman, McCain that are stewing around trying to lay blame on Bush as being totally incapable of being president. Now all info will be publicized and it we know too much - Al Qaida will just alter their plans a little.
Isn't our country shrewd? We cannot protect ourselves because we among ourselves try to destroy each other. Anything done - will be criticized for the pursuit of power. Therefore - all politicians will determine their actions based on what the opponents will say - not what needs to be done to protect us.
I absolutely hate the democratic party I see in action.
Ichiro bobble head doll night?
If there is another big attack that our goverment does not prevent,the feces may hit the air circulator.
Locked and loaded,also.
The very same thing that Bush was given before 9/11. Now act on it.
I think that the next Islamic terrorist attack might be against Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, 90-minutes away from this hotbed-home of Islam in America.
Why can I not shake this troubling question of who is leading who by the nose?
Look, you said in post #2, "Dammit. Protect my family... PROFILE!!"
Who do you think does that? FR posters? Not likely. It's the government.
One thing leads to another. They issue an alert. You respond to the propaganda, by crying out for more profiling. Next time they issue one of their ambigious alerts, you'll cry out for something else that violates the Constitution. On and on it goes and before long, you'll have given away the farm. They do it bit-by-bit, because they don't want anyone to notice. Nevertheless, some do.
You know, a lot of people disagree with me. They are the ones who believe that sometimes, to be safe, we are supposed to suspend the Constitution, and trust the government to do the right thing and take care of us. Your remark sounded like that. I don't buy that philosophy. To the contrary, I believe that the Constitution provides the government with all the power it requires, even in the context of an emergency, to do it's constitutional duty. There's even a past Supreme Court justice who agrees with me on that. Like taxes, give the government power that was once yours, you'll never get it back. Give them your Bill of Rights, and you're no longer a free person, living in a free society. You're a slave.
So my position has been made clear and there's no sense in arguing about it, because from here, I will not falter. As I have said in the past, many, many times. I am a strict constitutionalist. Anyone or anything that breeches that philosophy, or approaches it with the intent of altering it, is dangerous to the future of the Republic.
The only "problem", as you say, I have is that I look deeper than most. I do not accept things at face-value. If you desire to be right, so be it. Consider yourself right. It's no skin off my nose. At least, you know that your position is not universally accepted.
As silly as his color scheme is to some people, I don't view this latest news as a real threat unless the color is changed to orange or red.
Do I understand you correctly, LE's use of nationality and sex in profiling is a no no but the religious cleansing of America is a go?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.