Read between the lines, and CNN is suggesting that the outing of Khan has led to greater caution in al-Qaeda and similar groups about using electronic communications, which may make it more difficult to monitor them.
And the Washington Post reported on August 13th:
According to a Post report attributed to a senior U.S. official, "Khan became part of a sting operation organized by the CIA after he was captured last month [July 13] and agreed to send coded e-mail messages to al Qaeda contacts around the world." That sting operation was blown instantly by the leak of Khan's name.
Meanwhile, Condoleeza Rice had acknowledged to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on August 8, 2004 that the source of the Khan leak was the Bush administration, not Pakistani intelligence officials:
BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.
RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike.
Apparently neither Pakistani nor British officials were comforted by the "balance" Condoleeza Rice found so comforting. Juan Cole, August 8, 2004:
It turns out that both the United Kingdom and Pakistan are extremely angry with Bush for going public with the details gleaned from the computers of Khan and Ghailani.
In an article for the Observer, British Home Secretary David Blunkett lashed out at the Bush White House over last Sunday's announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge of an old al-Qaeda plot against financial institutions in New York and Washington. Blunkett writes, ...it is important to be able to distinguish if there is a meaningful contribution that helps to secure us from terrorism. And to understand if there isn't. And there are very good reasons why we shouldn't reveal certain information to the public...
Blunkett's measured tones barely disguise his fury at the Bush administration for having gone public with details that have endangered an ongoing British investigation and forced the premature arrest of twelve suspects, against whom it is not clear a case can be made at this point...
Pakistan's Interior Minister, Faisal Saleh Hayat, was also annoyed, according to Dawn:
Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat, in an interview on Friday, drew a veil over Khan's contribution to the breakthroughs against Al Qaeda. "This is a very sensitive subject. We must be very careful, we must exercise extreme caution in coming out with such names and such information," the minister said.
On August 9th Juan Cole wrote about and commented upon further fallout from the outing of Khan:
Neville Dean of PA News reports that... "Reports last week also claimed that five al Qaida militants were on the run in the UK after escaping capture in last Tuesday's raids." If this is true, it is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest...
...One [of those being held], Abu Eisa al-Hindi, is a high al-Qaeda official also wanted by the US. Because Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's identity was prematurely released, however, the British may not have enough evidence to extradite him. [note: to date al-Hindi apparently remains in British custody despite having been indicted in the United States -- Jpol]
CNN.com noted Monday morning:
"The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.
Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said...
