Your life in their hands
I want to tell you a story.
Last year, during the Democratic Convention in the run up to the presidential election, The Bush administration increased the level of security in the US.
When the press tried to find out why the level had been raised officials leaked the name of an al-Qaeda leader, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who had been captured with a laptop containing old plans for attacks on prominent US targets.
Khan had in fact been turned by his captors and was now an extremely rare mole inside al-Qaeda. When his name went public, a terrorist cell in the UK with connections to Khan scattered. The British police manage to catch some of them who had been under surveillance.
Some were released for lack of evidence. Others escaped completely. This number included, it would seem, one of last week’s suicide bombers.
Not a nice story is it?
There’s been a lot of talk this week on the blogs I frequent of something called “moral agency” of the bombings. It’s not a term I understand but it’s something to do with stating that nobody is to blame for the bombings but the terrorists themselves. Nobody else is to blame - not Blair not Bush not Iraq. Fair enough I can’t argue with that and I agree completely. I’ll get upset if it becomes an obligatory proviso, like the one we anti-war types always have to trot out about Saddam being a terrible dictator when we suggest all is not what it should be in Iraq right now, but that’s not for a lower than low “pseudo-leftie” like me to decide.
Yes, the four bombers and their network bear the total blame for their crimes.
But how about this. What if this story is true? What if the Bush Administration played politics with an investigation into an al-Qaeda cell and blew the cover of the only mole we had inside the organisation. What if other terrorist escaped in the confusion including those who went on to kill dozens in London last week? What does that say about Bush’s moral agency, that of those who were complicit and those who will now attempt to play down the story?
That said, I wouldn’t expect this to appear in the mainstream media any time soon. Our public servants’ (on both sides of the Atlantic) pensions, knighthoods, medals of honor, reputations and other baubles would be at risk. Forget about lives.
(Thanks to Robin Grant for the tip-off. He has all the links and is rightly angry.
Tim Ireland has more as does Edward at Fistful of Euros.)
Posted on July 15th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
| See also • The bombings • On the level? • Jim Bliss - Lord Goldsmith: The biggest balls in Britain? |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Uncategorized |
• |
“Not a nice story is it? ”
Not necessarily a true one either.
see
http://www.williambowles.info
“Dead Men. tell No Tales.”
Not necessarily a true one either.
I never said it was.
PostmansKnock:
Please tell me you don’t actually give any credence to that pathetic conspiracy theory you linked. It was Mossad? Shit, that’s not even original. It’s full of spelling mistakes, factual errors, and the writer clearly isn’t familiar with the London travel network. He isn’t even reasonably well informed about the facts of the case. I could knock up a better conspiracy theory in ten minutes.
TPM Café Must Read.
Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm’s way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won’t protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson’s occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies.
Politicians must not politicize the intelligence community. President Bush has been a decisive leader in the war on terrorism, at least initially. What about decisiveness now? Where is the accountability he promised us in the wake of Clinton Administration scandals? We find it hard to believe the President lacks the wherewithal to get to bottom of this travesty. It is up to the President to restore the bonds of trust with the intelligence community that have been shattered by this tawdry incident.
We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.