classic sense. with the twist going into unconventional warfare in an effective fashion. we know drone surveillance. what about the chatter and what about the ears on the ground? you have a middle ages philosophy against the new tech world. can we assume they are watching everything we are writing and we know where it is coming from? well, there is always a risk in intelligence that you get the information, but you don t know what that information means. so what you are dealing with is lots of chatter. it is foreign pull tis importan salient features out of the intin chatter. in going after jihadi john, it appears to have been very effective. we are also getting word of
important person. that, you know, that makes the world spin. yeah. i m sure it does play like that. phil, do you think that the russians actually could help in this war against isis? heck yes. i d say big time. if you look at who the russians have on their side, they re on the ground with drone surveillance in syria, they re a close ally obviously on the front lines with the syrian military. that s great intel that the syrian military would be collecting. they re in line with the iranians. the iranians friends hezbollah are a close ally as well fighting on the ground in syria. also they have on the border the iraqis. they ve got the biggest players in the region. hezbollah, syrians, iranians and iraqis. they got a straight flush if you will. we ve got a pair of 10s. we got the jordanians, turks, if you want intel on the ground, you want the people in the fight. and they ve got the people in the fight on their side collecting intelligence. we re only seconds away from getting the
the u.s. in this they re instructed to carry out small scale attacks inside the united states and other countries. he refers to the boston marathon bombing, charlie hebdo shootings. this is all from al qaeda. did the cia miss a chance to save an american hostage? according to the washington post the cia detected a man being held by al qaeda but they didn t keep that person under drone surveillance. some u.s. officials say they believe that man could have been warren weinstein, the american aid worker who was accidentally killed in a drone strike earlier this year. the news that outraged weinstein s father and family who fought for years to free him. john brownly is the weinstein
him. we need to let investigators do their job. if they found there were gaps, if el they found there were mistakes, then we ll deal with that. u.s. officials confirmed drone surveillance spotted a possible hosage at an al qaeda compound. that hostage was deemed high value because he was segregated, according to the washington post, but at this point officials insist there is nothing either at the time or in hindsight that the figure was weinstein. if they identified withfuls who a hostage they should have put complete and total coverage to make absolutely sure it wasn t a hostage. reporter: despite 400 hours of surveillance. the drone strike inadvertently killed weinstein and fellow hostage, giovanni laporto, an italian aid worker. we believed tlchs an al qaeda
the wall street journal associate editor john bussey is live on the news deck. a lot of holes here. there are and the white house won t be specific when this happened. what appeared to happen, though, shep the strikes happened in january, they begin to pick up scuttle but rumors, that hostages may have been killed sometime in thing. they begin to hear that. and between that time that they began to hear those rumors and yesterday, they are confirming it. they re going back over drone surveillance over interceptions, back over human intelligence to find out whether or not the hostages were killed, which they then confirmed. john, i know that there s a lot we can t know on matters like this, but doesn t the journal s reporting, as ours do, suggest there s a lot of aerial surveillance, hundreds of not thousands of hours of aerial surveillance, and it was made to