When infiltrating possible radical cells in other countries the last thing that an intelligence organization does is broadcast that fact - unless, of course, broadcasting that fact is a part of another endgame altogether.

First, the presentation of information. According to the Telegraph in the UK...

"American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.

They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.

Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.

A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain.

And a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama told The Sunday Telegraph that the CIA has stepped up its efforts in the last month after the Mumbai massacre laid bare the threat from Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group behind the attacks, which has an extensive web of supporters in the UK.

The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both London and Washington."

In this case, which is the better play? To leak that you are conducting wide spectrum operations or to play your cards close to your chest? If the CIA is in fact dealing with the sort of people that are capable of planning another attack on the United States, allowing such information to be spread would be detrimental given that it would allow them to alter their modus operandi. Not only that, claiming that 40% of the CIA's homeland security efforts are currently focused in the UK would also be detrimental. Unless, of course, they're not - or because the US is trying to send a very clear message to the British...

"The British intelligence official revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5's inability to keep tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully uncovered the plot.

MI5 manpower will have doubled to 4,100 by 2011 but many in the US intelligence community do not think that is enough.

For their part, some British officials are queasy that information obtained by the CIA from British Pakistanis was used to help target Mr Rauf, a British citizen, whom they would have preferred to capture and bring to trial.

Sensitivities over the intelligence arrangement formed a key part of briefings given to Mr Obama, since they are central to what is often called "the most special part of the special relationship" and could complicate his dealings with Gordon Brown.

Tensions in transatlantic intelligence relations which were laid bare last week during the High Court battle over Binyam Mohamed, the British resident held in Guanatanamo Bay. British judges wanted to publish details of the torture administered to Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, in US custody. But key paragraphs were blacked out after American officials threatened it could damage intelligence sharing between the two countries.

Intelligence experts said that a trusting intelligence relationship, in which one country does not publish intelligence data obtained by the other, is vital to both countries' national security."

In truth, the outing of such information could be entirely about placing pressure on British intelligence and Britain's legal system pertaining to cases that might divulge the use of torture by the United States on detained British nationals. No matter the defense of the 'special relationship' between the two country's intelligence communities, the fact remains that US intelligence has more to lose in the post Bush era than British intelligence does regarding the treatment of detainees.

While the CIA certainly possesses a considerable blunder list, divulging information regarding ongoing counter-terrorism operations isn't something that they are going to do unless it serves some other purpose. Because from the most basic of standpoints, those that are serious enough to even contemplate planning an attack on the United States are going to take such information into account and alter their routines and plans accordingly. Even more, if claims are being made that informants have been developed within the British Pakistani community, the open publication of such information could easily place lives at risk and force those that are actually bent on terrorist activities to pack up their show and move elsewhere.