Leaks and Bombs

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Both Atrios and John Aravosis are looking at the connection between the London bombings and Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, an al-Qaeda agent who was arrested secretly by Pakistani intelligence last year. Khan, as it turned out, had plans on his laptop for a coordinated bombing attack on London’s subways. Now at that point, both Pakistani intelligence and MI5 in Britain wanted to keep Khan’s name secret so that they could use the information they had gleaned to make arrests.

But that didn’t go quite according to plan.

What actually happened next remains a bit murky, but after a suspiciously-timed Tom Ridge terror alert during the week of the Democratic Convention, it seems that either someone in the Bush administration or someone in Pakistan leaked Khan’s name to the press, thus alerting the world to what the Pakistanis and British knew, and compromising various ongoing investigations. See Juan Cole’s old post for background on this. As a result, MI5 had to move in quickly on a cell of 13 suspected al-Qaeda members in Britain, but ended up letting five of them go for lack of evidence—in part because they were forced to move in quickly, thanks to the leak. It looked like a serious screw-up, but until that point, nothing fatal. But now ABC News is reporting that at least two of the men behind the London attacks last week may have been part of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan’s circle. Did MI5 fail to completely disrupt the London plot because of the leak? And how did Khan’s name get out in the first place?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate