Since when did the CIA stop frisking informants?
As we learn more about the suicide bombing of CIA officers in Afghanistan, it seems that time-honored safety precautions were broken:
[The bomber] fed the agency honest-to-goodness actionable intelligence about jihadis to build up his credibility, to the point where he came to be regarded as their best asset in years. They looked the other way when he posted on jihadist online forums, accepting his assurances at face value that he was only saying what he was saying to fool the enemy ”” even though, of course, he wasn’t. Finally he told them that he had big news about Zawahiri, which drew a phalanx of CIA officers eager to land the biggest of the big fish. So eager, in fact, that he reportedly wasn’t given a polygraph before being taken to the base and was allowed to skip checkpoints before arriving at the rendezvous point.
This is every bit as shocking as the lapses that allowed the underwear bomber to get as far as he did. Actually, it’s a great deal more shocking, because this is the CIA in the field that we’re talking about, not a group of bureaucrats at computers in DC and a bunch of underpaid screeners at an airport.
It is axiomatic—even to laypeople—that in intelligence work, even if you’ve gotten some low-level information from an informant, that person might be setting you up and lulling you into a false sense of security, the better to betray you in the end. Yes, there has to be some sort of trust developed, but it must always be hedged with reservations. In other words, never fail to take the usual precautions and search for weapons. This rule was apparently violated. Another basic rule that was apparently violated is known as “don’t bunch up” (i.e. congregate in groups in the informant’s presence).
So, why might these rules have been broken? Perhaps the great excitement over the idea that the informant had information on a very big fish indeed—Zawahiri—caused the CIA operatives to let down their guard. Maybe there also was something about this particular informant, who was a well-educated Jordanian doctor, that engendered a sense of bonding and therefore trust (of course, Zawahiri is also a doctor, as have been no small number of other terrorists, as the CIA no doubt knows).
Although the Obama justice department has worried the CIA with threats of lawsuits over decisions made during the Bush administration about so-called “torture,” it’s hard to see how that could have impacted on this event, except to lead to a certain amount of demoralization.
But there’s another policy of the Obama administration that might have had an effect. Obama has been pushing the idea that, if we were just kinder and gentler in approaching other cultures and even potential enemies, they are more likely to be won over. This notion might have trickled down and influenced CIA policy in Afghanistan, with the goal of creating an atmosphere that would let this informant know he was trusted by dropping certain elementary security precautions.
When I heard the story, it reminded me somewhat of an event that occurred on September 9, 2001, the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Afghan leader of the anti-Taliban movement. In the aftermath of 9/11, that killing was widely regarded as a preparation for the WTC and Pentagon attacks two days later, and the US retaliation against Afghanistan that was likely to follow.
Why do I say it’s similar? The assassins, North Africans masquerading as journalists and cameramen, spent weeks near Massoud’s camp, pressing for an interview with him and apparently gaining the trust of some of his entourage. Massoud and his staff were veterans of many assassination attempts and were highly aware of the need for tight security. But for some unknown reason the two “journalists” were not subject to the usual measures when the time finally arrived for the interview:
But the security was surprisingly slack. No one searched the men or examined their video camera. Massoud, who had survived assassination attempts, asked the men only where they came from and how they got there.
Massoud paid with his life for this moment of laxness. The country of Afghanistan paid as well, since it is often thought that his presence as a highly respected and admired figure might have helped unite Afghans under his leadership.
We’ll never know. But Massoud’s death, as well as the more recent deaths of the CIA agents, teach us one thing, and that is that anyone in such a position must never let down his/her guard. It has often been said that in order to succeed, “We have to be lucky all the time — but they only need to get lucky once.” It’s true that luck sometimes has something to do with it. But so does skillful execution. In order to prevent them from getting “lucky,” we must follow the security rules stringently, with no exceptions.
[ADDENDUM: See also this (hat tip: Artfldgr).]
This is another manifestation of a common fallacy – to ascribe to people of a quite different culture your own psychology. Even racists half of century ago had much more realistic expectations than modern multiculturalists. All this crap about building trust, as if they never heard about Muslim concept of takiya – deception, for which Prophet himself set a shining example. These CIA people should know better, but were blinded by ideological blinds that should be abrogated completely if we ever want to win.
same old same old..
but how would most know? they mostly only know about these agencies from left propaganda, errors that blow up, and movies which have no idea themselves.
It is axiomatic–even to laypeople–that in intelligence work, even if you’ve gotten some low-level information from an informant, that person might be setting you up and lulling you into a false sense of security, the better to betray you in the end.
all one has to do is read the story of Anatoliy Golitsyn, it was this same axiomatic bad play that from that point on, declined our CIA fulfilling the list of goals fo teh communist party (as listed in the naked communist).
Golitsyn, Nosenko, Angleton
Golitsun was a defector with lots of real information. but the info is inconvenient and way out… that the soviet union was taking a long view and manipulating us on 40 year terms when we can barely think 3 ahead…
he had tons of names of spies, and was part of the planning of things, nicluding using airline planes as ready weapons.
Golitsyn had said from the beginning that the KGB would try to plant defectors in an effort to discredit him. Regarding the second claim, Nosenko told his debriefers that he had been personally responsible for handling Oswald’s case and that the KGB had judged Oswald unfit for their services due to mental instability and had not even attempted to debrief Oswald about his work on the U-2 spy planes during his service in the United States Marine Corps. Under great duress, Nosenko failed two highly questionable lie detector tests but passed a third test monitored by several Agency departments.[11] Judging the claim of not interrogating Oswald about the U-2 improbable given Oswald’s familiarity with the U-2 program and faced with further challenges to Nosenko’s credibility (he was thought to have falsely claimed to be a lieutenant colonel, a higher rank than it was thought he held), Angleton did not object when David Murphy, then head of the Soviet Russia Division, ordered him held in solitary confinement for approximately three-and-a-half years. This solitary confinement included 16 months in a tiny attic with no windows or furniture, heat or air conditioning. Human contact was completely banned. He was given a shower once a week and had no television, reading material, radio, exercise or, toothbrush. Interrogations were frequent and intensive. He spent an additional brutal four months in a ten-foot-by-ten foot concrete bunker in Camp Perry. He was told that this condition would continue for 25 years unless he confessed to being a Soviet spy.[12]
to make a longer story shorter.
nosenko was believed over golytsin and angleton was out…
the decline of the CIA proceeded onward from their and never stopped.
On June 8, 1995, the British Conservative Member of Parliament Christopher Gill quoted The Perestroika Deception during a House of Commons debate, saying “It stretches credulity to its absolute bounds to think that suddenly, overnight, all those who were Communists will suddenly adopt a new philosophy and belief, with the result that everything will be different. I use this opportunity to warn the House and the country that that is not the truth,” and “Every time the House approves one of these collective agreements, not least treaties agreed by the collective of the European Union, it contributes to the furtherance of the Russian strategy.”
The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a “comprehensive political partnership,” including a “free trade area and economic integration”; “considerably more money for the partners” (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and “cultural partnership” – that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe.
According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan “Europe is to be islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. Fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.”
Skeptical? It’s already happening. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported in October 2008 on “a controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ ” that opened in Mali at that time as “just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU.’ Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe.” To offset this decline, a “blue card” system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work – as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits.
and where did that decline come from?
for every woman that works and does nto have a child, another woman has to have 5 to keep the population stable and neutral (no growth, no shrink)
the lack of westerners mating because of liberation has created a demographic outcome (that is obvious unless your a woman and too concerned with yourself – cause no one else did this), in which they have pruned off and exterminated their own family lines.
NOW… that leaves the whole thing open to a new world order as created by leveraging the greater fecundity of the stupid, over the lesser fecundity of the ideologically bent who believe themselves to be superior
ok…
now tell me that we can produce enough off spring to stop this…
we cant..
ergo.. the plan from 50 years ago (as laid out by Bella, weigand, and tons of others thought to be inconsequential) is now coming to fruit.
if you dont have babies you have no one to defend your country… or your customs… or so on.
how many of your women friends who are not like the feminists, have been having babies to make up for the difference? (so even if they are not in agreement, they are following the plan)
if you studied the demographics, popyulation totals and so forth.. the reason for the open boarders in the south was to mitigate the fact that the populatino here is been in steep decline thanks to feminism (not modernity as they claim).
so in order to hide that and prevent women from tinking about things, they let the gates open (i know, because for years i have tried to show it, and everyone points to the total, and does not subtract the less educated, more ideological, poorest immigrants)
the question was how to get rid of the west
the answer was to get rid of its economic base (jews and protestant ethics, and moral white men), and the answer to taht was to convinve the women, through vanity and propaganda, so the outcome of their actions in the ancilary will make the goal happen.
60 million abortions since then..
and thas how many they are going to import.
funny how that works.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
the way the AQ man fooled the CIA was right out of the russian textbook from afghanistan war!!!
that is, the russians wanted to get the mujahdin.
so what they did, was create a hero
that is, they sent one of their own men..
and then had him murder his own people
even important people.
the mujahadin leaders were then convinced
and so, the person became able to change the course from the inside.
this is exactly the same thing that they did to the US cia men.
we dont think that way. we dont think lets put a guy in and we will convince them he is sincere by letting him murder a few important people.
we think life is sacred.
they think differently, and so life is disposable to ends. and so, the men who are important are just as sacrificial as any one else since the end justifies the means
the end of murdering your own people was justified to create the means of access to murder key enemy figures. (the sacrificial lambs will be martyred as a consolation prize)
failiure to study the methods of your enemies is failure to learn waht they do
I would be happy to send the CIA a copy of any season they prefer of the TV series, 24. If nothing else can be learned, lack of trust is surely on display.
This boggles the imagination: they were depending on the treachery of this individual to enhance his usefulness. So they trusted him? Inconceivable–not!
The Meaning of al Qaeda’s Double Agent
The jihadists are showing impressive counterintelligence ability that the CIA seems to have underestimated.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644132628157104.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
if you dont believe russia is in on the game and feeding them information, then of course you would underestimate them… after all, they are not the ones that are capable, and we could never think our friends with the reset button and all would do that… (which is why the tactic they used previously worked with us)
Art, you are so obviously paranoid about Russia. Now Al-Qaeda is enemy #1 for Russian government. A month ago islamists derail “Nevsky Express”, killing several high-ranking officials. Two days ago they killed 5 Army officers in Dagestan and attempted to blow the whole Russian army base. Yesterday the organizers of this crime were killed by special forces. It is almost a war in North Caucasia now, where ministers and presidents of constituent national republics are targeted by islamic terrorists.
Massoud had one moment of laxity. He’s dead.
These CIA agents are dead from one moment of laxity.
Next in the order of progression is another major strike. This time it could be a city or city blocks and not a “mere” skyscraper.
The odds of Obama and Liberals having a “moment” of laxity? High.
Neo . . .
This is a fabulous report. You are National Treasure. I don’t know how many people read your site, but you are a daily MUST READ for me.
One of these days, the American people are going to get serious about the Islamic menace. I don’t know how many of us will have to be killed first, but ultimately that day will come.
As your readers already know, at this moment we are governed by idiots or enemies or maybe idiots/enemies. Belmont Club has a good post today about Obama’s continuing idiocy.
I guess I have nothing more to say except “thank you for all the work you do on your blog.”
Correction: You are a National Treasure.
describes how the British defeated the IRA terrorists with the same tactics that Artfldgr says the Soviets used in Afghanistan.
I discussed this article with an acquaintance who’s an expert in military history. He said that the same strategy was used by the US Army against some of the Plains Indian tribes.
“underpaid screeners”
How much more should the extras in a Security Theater performance be paid?
Error 404 – Not Found when I click on the addendum.
Black Mamba: thanks. The link in the addendum is fixed now.
And Promethea: thanks for the kind words.
And, if we have to be governed by enemies, it would be a good thing if they were idiots as well.
Madrussian,
its NOT paranoia if they are actually a part of it!!!
and archives, and defectors, and MANY people, including the leaders have admitted many games.
paranoia is a nice thing to claim if it were true, however, its not… Russia has a long modern history of being extreemly devious and duplicit, manipulative, and dirty… (with its general population having no say as to how they are).
A month ago islamists derail “Nevsky Express”, killing several high-ranking officials.
so?
no way to know anything with a society led by people whose basis of morals is end justifies the means. under that, there are no limits for the whole.
that is, under ends justifies the means, blowing things up and blaming the other is just as good as anyting else if it moves things to where you want it. (and since they dont have this limitation they dont know wehere the limitation of their enemies are, and so they accuse them pre-emtively all the time)
the problem is that russia continues to use assasinations in their politics, and so any death cant be dismissed as what it is said to be.
also, attacking themselves is a nice way to get the world to think that they share the similar problems rather than being the instigator of them.
FSB/KGB, GRU/VMF, MVD, SVR, all have such groups…
Vityaz became well-known in October 1993 when the government used them in their military operations at the Ostankino television center. Arriving at the television center at the president’s personal request, the Vityaz team physically annihilated virtually all the opposition supporters who tried to break into Ostankino, (and all the innocent bystanders who just happened to be in the battle zone) losing only one man in the process. But the GRU’s spetsnaz, about which the Russian press has only begun to write, remains little known, although its brigades, battalions, and companies exist in every military district
The KGB ran scores of secret “false flag” military operations inside Afghanistan during the 1980s. In these, Soviet-trained Afghan guerrilla units posed as CIA-supported, anti-Soviet mujaheddin rebels to create confusion and flush out genuine rebels for counterattacking. By January 1983, there were, according to Mitrokhin, 86 armed, KGB-trained “false bands,” as they were called, operating throughout Afghanistan. These disclosures also throw new light on the chronic mujaheddin infighting during the 1980s. A perhaps significant number of the clashes among mujaheddin groups during the 1980s, which set the stage for the catastrophic civil war in the 1990s, apparently were carried out deliberately by paid KGB agents. A KGB operative but increasingly disaffected following the bloody suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968 and the dissident movement, Vasiliy Mitrokhin decided to compile his own account of the KGB’s foreign operations when he was put in charge in 1972 of the transfer of the foreign operations archives from the KGB’s headquarters at Lubyanka in Moscow to Yasenevo southwest of the capital. Working in complete secrecy for over ten years, Mitrokhin first took notes in longhand while working in the archives and later, once safely in his dacha, sorted and transcribed them. They are now being made available at no charge by the CWIHP at http://cwihp.si.edu.
and
The KGB attached particular importance to the establishment of the so-called false bands.
They pretended to be armed groups of Dushmen. They operated against real Mujahedin groups and killed and slaughtered them whenever an opportunity arose. They provoked clashes between different partisan groups and when necessary pretended to abandon their armed opposition, surrender to the authorities and go over to the government side. There were 84 such bands in October 1982, and two more were formed by January 1983…
A separate organ within Khad was Feda, the Foreign Intelligence Directorate. To hide its identity, it was known only as the 10th Directorate. It was made up of 14 departments in the center and 10 departments in the Khad directorates in the provinces near the borders with Iran and Pakistan and in the towns of Herat, Farah, Kandahar, Khost, Jalalabad, Nimruz, Gilmand, Zabul, Paktik and Kunduz. It also had a department dealing with the tribes as well as an illegals department…
There were 315 agents and 250 trainees in the agent apparatus. In Pakistan there were 107 agents and 115 active trainees. The figures for Iran were 39 and 73. 26 agents had direct access to the headquarters of the Islamic rebel organizations, and 48 agents were in the rear of the Afghan emigration. 15 officials, military personnel and members of the special services of Pakistan were recruited. 8 members of Khad became legalized and infiltrated the centers and branches of the insurgent organizations and parties in Pakistan. The intelligence service infiltrated the leadership of the tribes of the northwest frontier province and Baluchistan. It established contact with the leaders of the Aphridi, Momand, Turi and Banjavur tribes. Fifteen agent groups consisting of 455 men were active amongst the free tribes on special assignments which were a strictly held state secret. The intelligence service found channels through which it could penetrate the headquarters of the Afghan resistance, the training centers of the resistance and the special services of Pakistan and Iran. It sent intelligence officers and agents with internal Hadji identity papers on assignments. They bought foreign passports pretending to be Afghans wishing to go to Saudi Arabia to earn money…
The KGB repeatedly demanded that they should work persistently and flexibly with the leaders of the tribes and clergy, as the people of the country were under their influence and they could persuade them to support the Kabul regime. The KGB itself changed the strategy of the fight. In the middle of 1980 a plan was drawn up for a military strike against the Jadran tribes (126) in the province of Paktia and the defeat of the units of Mullah Jalaluddin. It was drawn up jointly by Sokolov, [CPSU] Party adviser S.V. Kozlov, KGB representatives and the embassy. Babrak was kept informed. But in September the same people decided against any large-scale military operations and [decided] to concentrate instead on disruption of the tribes. This was largely because of the numbers involved and the difficult terrain. There were 90,000 people in the tribes, 20,000 of them armed. 41 million Afghani were allocated for this purpose. Political workers were sent to the tribes and leaflets were dropped. Minister of the Borders and Tribes Faiz Muhammad attempted to negotiate with the tribal leaders but he was killed. The authorities accused Mullah Jalaluddin of ignoring the traditional Muslim customs of hospitality and of killing the envoy.
Khad had talks with 315 tribal elders representing 18 large tribes accounting for 1 million people altogether. Some tribes were given material assistance through Khad. The leaders were bribed and armed units hired to cover some parts of the borders with Pakistan and Iran…
Moscow Subway Blasts Kill at Least 41