Dana Priest

• Video Priest talks about the arrest of al Qaeda leader on MSNBC (Nov. 22) • Alleged USS Cole Plotter Caught (Post. Nov. 22) • IntelligenCIA • Back Channels • Full Coverage: National Security • Special Report: America at War • Talk: National News message boards • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

Intelligence: Capture of al Qaeda Leader
With Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, Nov. 22, 2002; Noon ET

Recently, U.S. officials identified the capture of senior al Qaeda leader, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who had close ties to Osama bin Laden. Al-Nashiri is suspected of being the head of al Qaeda's Gulf operations and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Read the full story Alleged USS Cole Plotter Caught (Post. Nov. 22).

Post staff writer Dana Priest will be online Nov. 22 at Noon ET, to discuss intelligence issues and the recent capture of the al Qaeda leader.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Dana Priest: This is Dana. I'm glad to be here. Let's get started.

Washington, D.C.: I just saw you on MSNBC with Rick Sanchez, talking about how these captured terrorists are being interrogated by non-US intelligence services, which can mean there is torture involved in the questioning. Do human rights organizations, that you know of, know about this, and what are they doing about it? Do you or any other US reporters question, for example, Donald Rumsfeld, about the possible use of torture?

washingtonpost.com: Video: Priest talks about the arrest of al Qaeda leader on MSNBC

Dana Priest: This is one of the most sensitive subjects around these days. It is well known that some of the places they are taking prisoners have a history of using very brutal means with prisoners. Case have been documented for years by human rights organizations and you can go on their websites (human rights watch and amnesty international come to mind) for their country reports. I am told by officials that the reason many suspected terrorists are kept overseas is because the interrogation rules are much more lax, and other governments are permitted to be much more aggressive. Many people are concerned about this, but in the war on terrorism, the balance between exacting more useful information and maintaining a US standard of treatment is blurred. Officially, the US government and its leaders do not condone the use of torture. And US soldiers and other personnel are not allowed to participate in it. We know very little about what is happening overseas because it is highly guarded. I would like to know a lot more.

Harrisburg, Pa.: This arrest restores public faith that al Qaeda leaders can be found. Do you have any feelings as to whether the al Qaeda network can be destroyed, or do you see it as a long term permanent threat?

washingtonpost.com: Alleged USS Cole Plotter Caught (Post. Nov. 22)

Dana Priest: You're right. Arrests like this should give confidence that the US and others have incredible capabilities and are aggressively tracking the Al Qaeda leaders they know of. Some intelligence analysts argue that the AQ network has, in essence, been destroyed. But it has been replaced by a looser "network" with people who were lower down before now assuming greater importance. Also, they believe an quite different-looking, decentralized body has replaced AQ's hierarchy. Operatives act more ad hoc, with authority from bin Laden to do so. Also, there are more links with other groups now. In fact, "terrorism" should no longer be equated just with AQ but with a band of groups out there. No one has found a way to name them yet though. They share an anti-American philosophy and fervor for radical Islam.

Wichita Falls, Tex.: How credible are reports that bin Laden either suffered a chest wound during the Tora Bora bombing, or is on dialysis? If the latter is the case, and if, as purported, he is somewhere around the Kahmir region, is it possible to provide the sustained and rather intensive medical care he will require?

Dana Priest: We know that intelligence officers were operating under the assumption that he does, indeed, need dialysis and, at one time, they were tracking the sale and transfer of parts and machinery that would be used in such treatment.

Boston, Mass.: On a torture/moral boundary note. What do you think of attack on the Al Qaeda members car by remote missile that happened a week ago. Is the United States moving towards Israeli style preemptive assasinations? On this and the torture topic I am surprised this Administration isn't more blunt and about what they are doing, it would seem in keeping with their style.

Dana Priest: On the surface--and as an observer--it certainly looks and feels like the Israeli-style preemptive assassination. The elements are all there: A targeted individual or importance. The lethal weapon. An elaborate operation to track him down. The authority to shot to kill. US officials say the difference is that their targets are "combattants" who are at war with the US. The Israelis would say this is a distinction without any difference vis a vis their situation.

Silver Spring, Md.: Accepting the severe nature of the al Qaeda threat, I can't help wondering whether it is more of a threat than the Nazis and Japanese were during WWII? Are the measures being taken now to restrict our civil liberties and the actions taken by our government abroad in capturing al Qaeda operatives more extreme than those taken by the government in fighting WWII? If so is it justified?

Dana Priest: Hard to compare, don't you think. We have more liberties now to restrict. We have more evolved laws now to, theoretically, be broken. Human rights laws being one of them. Our standards for the treatment of prisoners of war, combattants and civilians on the battlefield have changed so dramatically. Look at the precision-targeting done by Air Force and Navy pilots now, in large part to avoid collateral damage--the death of civilians. Nothing like that existed in WWII. Then again, we imprisoned thousands of Japanese and Japanese-Americans during that conflict. we have not done nothing like that with Arabs and Arab-Americans and civil libertaries are on the lookout for abuses much more than before.

Lincoln, Neb.: Does Al-Qaeda consider 9/11 a "success" strategically as well as tactically? It seems to have brought the world down on their head. Wouldn't they conclude that they're better off with lower-level attacks that don't enrage the world as much? They claim to aim to want the US out of the Middle East, but their attacks have arguably magnified American power and influence and resolve.

Dana Priest: Only guessing, but one would have to say yes. While the attacks outraged the world, as our reaction--largely led by the military-- has continued, we now see a growing hostility to U.S. troops and Americans around the world, and particularly in the Middle East. The US longstanding relationship with Saudi Arabia and other monarchies in the region is under question--even within this administration. Remember, bin Laden's first goal was to kick Americans out of the holy lands of Saudi Arabia.

Newington, Conn.: Hi,

The arrest appears to be making progress in the war on terrorism. But its pace also reveals the possibility of tacit support for Al Qaeda at business and political levels in countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and others. If this hypothesis is true then what are our chances of future apprehension of Al Qaeda leaders? Would we be continually using money or some other mechanism as a leverage to seek more arrests?

Dana Priest: I think you are right. Relationships have been revealed that were known previously only to the CIA and highest levels of government. U.S. officials are using every means possible, to coax, badger, push these countries to cooperate. Money, weapons, military training and intelligence sharing are the carrots. The sticks, well, I guess publicity--the public revealing of their shielding of terrorists--would be in the stick category.

Boston, Mass.: Will Mushareff eventually allow US troops into the Northern Tribal areas of Pakistan and weed out the terrorist who are in there and perhaps find Bin Laden there? Bush expresses his desire to act w/ countries who are harboring terrorist and these tribal areas obviously are.

Dana Priest: I doubt he will ever allow a conventional force presence. I would bet anything he's already allowed a much more discreet, special operations presence for particular snatches and attacks.

Arlington, Va.: In its intelligence-gathering for self-defense, Israel undoubtably intrudes greatly on the "civil rights" (as defined in US terms) of Palestinians. But despite a much smaller geography and population, Israel is still unable to fully identify/prevent bomb plots because so many Palestinians are such bitter enemies.

Similarly, it seems likely that, at some level, the US needs to balance its war-on-terror campaign with a campaign to win the hearts-and-minds of the global islamic community.

What aspects of US intelligence-gathering do you think cross the line such that, while providing marginally better intelligence, are outweighed by the damage it does to the US in the hearts/minds of muslims?

Dana Priest: This balance is exactly the right point. Beside the moral question, assassinations have been outlawed by Presidential executive order for many other reason, among them: The blowback/reaction from targeted population can be worse than the "problem" eliminated with a sniper bullet; if others perceive this as a policy, it will give them the go-ahead to use the same method against U.S. people.

Boston, Mass.: Do you think that we are coming very close to an all out war with an alliance of Muslim countries from the Middle East? Or do you think that the governments from those countries would not want to declare war against America and therefore we will be forced to continue to fight against militant groups such as Al Qaeda?

Dana Priest: I don't think we're anywhere close to that. Even the countries that publicly condemn US heavy-handedness in war on terrorism and President Bush's intentions vis a vis Iraq--Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for example--have strong government to government relations with Washington. More likely is instability in individual countries that resort to extreme measures to crack down on domestic radicals but don't make the distinction between non-violent political opponents and people who was to destroy their regimes by force/terrorism.

Derwood, Md.: There seems to be a lot of focus on al Qaeda, but how about other terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas who have both recently threatened U.S. interests. We haven't been able to catch Bin Laden, but how about catching Arafat and putting him on trial for his crimes against humanity.

Dana Priest: Lots of people, including the U.S. government, recognize Arafat as the elected leader of the Palestinians. So that puts him in a different category. As for tracking or breaking up Hezbollah and Hamas: they have acted, largely, within their regions and against Israel and US support of Israel. Hezbollah also is a legitimate political party in Lebanon, so the issue is more complex that you state. I understand, however, that these groups are under great scrutiny by the US than before and certainly some members of Congress would like the US government to confront them more directly.

Long Beach, Calif.: Within days of the attacks, former President Bush was on CNN declaring that 9/11 was a result of NOT allowing assassinations. I am of the opposite opinion. Does this not point to a disdain for Ford's executive order by the Bush clan?

Dana Priest: Disdain is too harsh, I think. Probably a gut-level reaction. I do think the Bush administration decided early on that it should adopt different tactics like using Predators armed with Hellfire missiles. But I bet there were plenty of lawyers at the table at least insisting on a full debate of the issue.

Washington, D.C.: Every time an alleged Al Queda leader is arrested we get reports saying he's cooperating. How true is this? And how much good information can reasonably gained from people who have sworn to harm Western interest world wide?

Dana Priest: Hard question to answer. Mainly because the government doesn't say much about this, for obvious reasons. I believe they have ways, though, of cross-checking the information provided. Also, it seems the allegiance of individuals varies in strength. The truth is, they appear to be making strides in this area--more overseas arrests--so that's the best indication in itself.

Rockville, Md.: This is a basic question. Has the US publicized a reward scheme for information leading to the capture of OBL?

I would think that say $50 million and passage anywhere in the world for the informant and whoever else he wants would be attractive and cost effective.

Dana Priest: Yes, but we haven't seen evidence that this is a big motivating factor among the Al Qaeda insiders.

Alexandria, Va.: Where was this al Qaeda leader when he was captured? Did any foreign countries assist in his capture?

Dana Priest: We don't know for sure. Officials don't want this out. Lots of governments pledge cooperation on the promise that their efforts will not be publicized. Why? Because cooperating with the United States is controversial in their countries. Now that's interesting. From several past cases--Binalshib being the most recent--I would guess that, yes,there was foreign government assistance. It is also probable that the capture was entirely foreign. Much easier for locals to move unnoticed. Also, US still has a low tolerance for US casualties so they try to keep the direct American involvement low. I'm told the US does very little unilaterally in these kinds of snatch operations.

Long Beach, Calif.: I'm of the opinion that removal of all US forces from the Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia would be more productive in relation to our national security than any other change in our position. After all, Osama did warn us in advance to get out of there for our own good. He's made good on all of his promises so far, why not take his advice "for our own good"?

Dana Priest: Many people agree with you (and many do not). The implications would be huge: The Saudi monarchy might fall. Oil flow disrupted. Other regimes in the region might go. Unclear who the successors would be--a move towards pluarlism or away. Loss of important access for US military to region. Loss of pivotal political actor in region. Then again, lots of people argue that supporting the status quo there is what got us in trouble in the first place.

Honolulu, Hawaii: The administration's war on terrorism started as a noose tightening strategy, much like the war on Saddam Hussein. Would it have been wiser to continue that strategy as long as particalble, giving the defense department and CIA time to completely assess and infiltrate Al Qaeda? What it has done now is driven them underground, making Al Qaeda much harder to assess and infiltrate.

Dana Priest: The noose analogy goes only so far as Tora Bora and the overdependence on Northern Alliance to do the work on the ground. Some see it more like a balloon now. Squeeze it in one place, it moves to another. Like the drug trade. The idea now is to plug the holes---to close of all the "safe havens." Unfortunately, that means entire countries that are nearly failed states already--like Yemen, Somalia, Uzbekistan.

Vienna, Va.: In response to the caller who does not think that Al Qaeda is the same threat level as the Axis powers were in World War II, I would like to point out that with the exception of a couple of sporadic Japanese attacks on the West Coast with submarine-based seaplanes and small wind-carried balloon bombs, none of the Axis powers were able to mount a significant attack on the American mainland. At the end of the war Hitler's scientists were working on an "America Bomber" that could have crossed the Atlantic but never was operational. German U-boats sunk many ships just off our Gulf and Atlantic coasts but never attacked the mainland. No, Al-Qeada is FAR more of a threat than our previous enemies EVER were.

Dana Priest: Here's someone else's response to consider. I'd like to point out that AQ represents the ultimate in an asymetric threat--the toughest kind ot defeat with conventional weapons, force structures and mindset.

Washington, D.C.:
Ms. Priest --

I admit it. I have totally lost interest in the search for al Qaeda -- because I think there is no such search.

Without question, the authorities in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and probably other terrorist/Muslim countries know exactly who and where the al Qaeda leadership is. But rather than track down the terrorist leaders, the current U.S. administration has used terrorism as a means of railroading through civil service, budget, energy, and corporate-regulatory legislation of its choice -- all largely irrelevant to actual terrorism.

Why should the public take any interest any further?

Dana Priest: Well, I guess I disagree. I think we would have gotten a sense of something as mischevious as that. Conspiracies are actually hard to carry out.

Arlington, Va.: Dana,

Would you comment on the disconnect between what President Bush says about how close Iraq is to having a nuclear weapon on the one hand and what the CIA and the rest of the U.S. and U.K. Intelligence Communities say on the other?

Background on this and related issues can be found in op-ed by Ray McGovern, "Bush, CIA Out Of Sync On Iraq," Hartford Courant, November 18. (Go to hartfordcourant.com.)

Dana Priest: You can find these differences on your own by going to the CIA webpage at cia.gov. There you will find their most recent assessment. It is a matter of degree and interpretation rather than polar opposites, especially in the area of nuclear weapons.

Seattle, Wash.: Inevitably the issue of Israel as a motivating factor always comes up in conversations about Al
Qaeda and Bin Laden. Is this really the central issue motivating the terrorists? What impact do you think peace in
the middle would have on Al Queda. In other words would our government be better served working on peace in
the middle east rather than the war on terrorism?

Dana Priest: Peace in the Middle East would probably isolate AQ. Israel is not a focus for AQ, but it is one of several motivators.

Wheaton, Md.: Has the intelligence community establish a link between al Qaeda and any of the Palestinian terrorist groups?

Dana Priest: They share some parts of their ideology (anti Israel, anti US) but not others (Palestinian groups don't support fundamentalism). There are, I believe, some "tactical" links with suppliers, trainers. There have been meetings at some level with Hezbollah and AQ. It is a growing worry among intel officials.

Dana Priest: I was a pleasure. Hope we can do this again soon.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Bob Levey: Speaking Freely at 1 p.m. ET
Comics: Jean Schulz' on 'Peanuts' Legacy at 1 p.m. ET
'Personal Velocity' Author/Director Rebecca Miller at 2 p.m. ET
Film: Rita Kempley at 2 p.m. ET
Redskins Assistant Quarterback Coach Noah Brindise at 3 p.m. ET

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |