The Washington Post runs an article today about a collision between US and Saudi Arabian intelligence gathering through the monitoring of extremist websites. The Saudis and the CIA set up a site to attract extremists and monitored it to learn the who, where, how, when of potential attacks. The US military saw the site as working against military interests in Iraq and leading directly to the deaths of US soldiers there. The military won the policy argument and the site was shut down—but without informing the Saudis or getting their input.
The article discusses the utility of shutting down sites and whether it serves much of a purpose when it can be re-established via mirror sites in a matter of hours. Interesting reading…
Dismantling of Saudi-CIA Web site illustrates need for clearer cyberwar policies
Ellen NakashimaBy early 2008, top U.S. military officials had become convinced that extremists planning attacks on American forces in Iraq were making use of a Web site set up by the Saudi government and the CIA to uncover terrorist plots in the kingdom.
“We knew we were going to be forced to shut this thing down,” recalled one former civilian official, describing tense internal discussions in which military commanders argued that the site was putting Americans at risk. “CIA resented that,” the former official said.
Elite U.S. military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled the online forum. Although some Saudi officials had been informed in advance about the Pentagon’s plan, several key princes were “absolutely furious” at the loss of an intelligence-gathering tool, according to another former U.S. official.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
March:19:2010 - 11:15
If the Pentagon informed some Saudi officials, I don’ see why the Saudi princes are upset about it. They should establish their own set-up if they want to. They don’t have to ride on the shoulders of the US technology to gather intelligence for themselves.
The article discusses several legal issues involved, which are quite complex. I don’t see why the Congress should be informed. This is of course a defense intelligence strategy. Are all the moves of the defense intelligence informed to the Congress?
March:19:2010 - 11:28
Generally, intelligence agencies–or intelligence divisions of agencies, as here–do have to notify the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate. The members of those Committees have security clearances (a prerequisite for being put on the Committees), but do not have the authority to further distribute the information they learn.
The monitoring program was a joint program. That normally means that one member does not take actions without notifying the other. Just informing ‘an official’ doesn’t mean it was the right or useful official. It might have only been someone with no understanding of the importance–or even existence–of the program, so it was useless as far as informing those who needed to know, but useful in providing the excuse that someone was informed.
March:19:2010 - 14:54
If society is to attract young people to take an interest in topics besides the ravings of dementive religious zealouts, it should encourage a livelier cultural and artistic environment for such young people.
Young men especially are frequently bored, and young men are a group most likely to be attracted to such zealouts.
March:20:2010 - 02:10
CIA + Saudi collaboration or joint effort kinda send shivers down my spine. Stupid Americans again! They will never learn…not to trust Saudis. Saudis will always coddle and protect their citizens not sell them out like the Americans will.
Andrew apparently some of the zealouts are traps! That could be a good deterent to would be real zealouts but only those not within certain borders.
I wouldn’t be surprised is the Jihad Jane and her entourage was a trap as well. Apparently someone said the cartoonist was saying concerning the people who were trying to murder him, “They aren’t professional” Hell yeah they aren’t professional because if they were professionals then he’d be dead as easy as getting out of his car and BANG!
March:20:2010 - 03:57
Sparky,
What do you mean by zealots as traps?
March:20:2010 - 04:05
John’s words “The Saudis and the CIA set up a site to attract extremists and monitored it to learn the who, where, how, when of potential attacks.”
You wouldn’t call that a trap? I would.
The problem however is some thought that this may have led to loss of American life in Iraq, thus, why I am calling Americans being stupid for being fooled into thinking it was a “zealot trap” when it may or could have been more “zealot incitement”.
March:20:2010 - 09:31
I really don’t think ‘stupid’ is the right word. Actually, I don’t think the plan was stupid in the least. By setting up a trap, the US and Saudis were able to track who was coming to it and who was saying what. ID-ing those folks had value in itself. I know for a fact that it also led to identifying various terror-funding schemes which were then shut down.
March:20:2010 - 09:44
I am sometimes taken to technorati. I don’t know why. I lost what I was typing but I will retype it because I believe it is important.
March:20:2010 - 10:00
I stand by my word stupid. O.K. My vocabulary has been greatly reduced to stupid. However, I respect your opinion on the subject.
I would argue there are better choices or venues to get at terrorist financing other than setting up website traps. I think infiltrating a website is o.k. but setting them up is WRONG! WRONG! Setting up such motivational extremist sites is WRONG! That isn’t exactly what I wrote before but close enough.
I am fortunate enough to haven’t had a child die in war to have a stronger opinion on this. That said in efforts to stamp out terrorism or extremism it would be prudent to look at what articles have been churning out especially the last two months, ones you have chosen to comment on. More effort needs to be spent on such areas. Again monitoring, infilterating, persuading etc, is a world of difference than setting up. That is an abomination in my humble opinion. How can one be sure that they weren’t responsible for not only setting up a site but setting up the murder of American soldiers and interests. That is unbelievable.
March:20:2010 - 10:49
Wow I should have put the word “stupid” in quotes. John you are brilliant to me. It sounded as if I were calling you stupid in that line and I would never do that.
March:20:2010 - 11:28
The thought never crossed my mind!
March:20:2010 - 11:56
If the US devises such traps, it is stupid to advertise it to the public through media so that everyone knows about it.
March:20:2010 - 13:17
Ah yes… but the media’s interests don’t always line up with the government’s interests, do they!?
March:20:2010 - 21:01
Reading the article it seems that the prime feud was between the Dept of Defense and the CIA apparently traditional adversaries professionally who function better or worse depending on who is managing their relationship.
Certainly if this was step us a joint endeavour then crippling it unilaterally, is inappropriate. A token telling “some officials” could be just that, ie token and not involving the real decision-makers who most likely include the offended Princes.
I agree with Sparky that the danger of creating a site is creating rather than netting extremists, rather like the danger of satire. There are always those who will fail to see the humour and really believe that eating milk fed Irish toddlers is the best solution to poverty. Or, if I could remember the name of the American play, that the finale speech about Nazism was not intended to be a rallying point for neo-Nazis who failed to appreciate the satire, or chose to ignore that aspect of it.
March:20:2010 - 23:37
Welcome to ‘Inside the Beltway’! Yes, bureaucratic turf battles are unseemly at best and tend to leave flaming ruins behind them. This program seems to have been just that.
I don’t think there’s that fine a line between ‘entrapment’ (legal definition) wherein the authorities create the criminal behavior and planning that merely dangles bait in front of someone who’s inclined to do it anyway. I definitely don’t see this program creating would-terrorists. It did, however, give them a virtual place to gather. The military thought that was too great a risk and apparently won the in-fighting. That doesn’t mean they were correct–and frankly, military foreign intelligence is not top rank as far as I’m concerned. It only means they won the in-fighting.
I won’t be so cynical as to say that ‘token notification’ was intended. Rather, I suspect, the military passed word along through military contacts in the KSA. Those may (or likely may not) have understood the importance or pecking order involved in the program, even on their own side. In other words, SNAFU.
March:21:2010 - 03:44
Edit it: “step us”, above should be “set up” (must be all that step dancing I was doing in celebration of the first day of Spring
)
You would know better about the content and operation of the site to know which side of entrapment it fell on, although as the article pointed out creating a honey pot runs the risk of attracting new passers by to honey-eating. Hard to know what percentage are just finding a place to feed and what percentage are new feeders.
I’m not sure that the intention was sinister token identification of the “let’s pretend we notified and discussed with the decision-makers” type, but perhaps more the common rush to change something and making sure that you ticked off the “let the other guys know” box without much care to who or how. Sort of like when I wgot calls from all over campus from someones of various ranks asking me about whatever, and then finding out that it was a colleague who had left and given my name for various functions as the new contact person without remembering to let me know. Ah, and then the file that appears on my desk, with articles pertaining to a topic of passing interest, a gift from someone departing? or a token of thank you for taking over the lecture series “I didn’t tell you that you are doing in my place”? The latter needless to say–and oh the senior jealousies over this career “plum”; the sniffs of “well if we must deal with a junior replacing a senior” from the lecture coordinator…ah but it was worth it in the end. LOL
SNAFU is so very appropriate.