Peter Krupa

An LA Times story this morning is a good example of why naming your sources is important. The story, about that disrupted German terror plot, reports that the interception of communications between the terror suspects and Pakistan by U.S. intelligence was a “key factor” in bringing the plot down.

The source: “A U.S. counter-terrorism official,” which is more or less the only source for all the fresh news in this story.

Now, let’s think about this. Are high-level U.S. counter-terrorism officials just dying to run off to the nation’s newspapers and anonymously spill their guts? Like, what, for the thrill of giving the LA Times a scoop?

No. They’re not. It’s more likely that the newspaper got a call from some shadowy figure at the Department of Defense or the White House or the Ministry of Truth offering an exclusive interview with an un-named counter-terrorism official.

That official then said things like, “The U.S. counter-terrorism community supported efforts to draw links, to do intercepts and to monitor communications between Pakistan and Germany,” and described how U.S. intelligence eavesdropped on e-mail and wireless communications.

Suddenly the German terror plot has a fancy new spin: U.S. intelligence saves lives by using the sketchy big-brother spying tactics that have been the source of legal battles and endless criticism at home! Maybe the ends do justify the means!

Now this LA Times article kind of sounds like a U.S. government P.R. drive-by, doesn’t it? The only way to prove my suspicions wrong would be to produce this government official, find out why he talked to the LA Times, and corroborate some of his info with other real people.

But, of course, the official is anonymous. Dead end.

UPDATE: For an example of a better way to cover this story, check out the New York Times version, which came out on Monday and focuses on the law that allows more sketchy spying techniques. Sample paragraph:

This distinction is important because Mr. McConnell’s remarks, on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, were an important part of the Bush administration’s intensifying effort to make permanent the new law, which is scheduled to expire in about five months. Democrats in Congress have said that they want to write more safeguards for civil liberties into the law before renewing it. 

Ah. Now we understand the reason for the LA Times “leak.”