Returning briefly on those flights that allowed many to evacuate Arab U.S. in the days following Sept. 11, including members of the Bin Laden family, and observe how the investigation committee of the U.S. government treated this issue. On August 22, 2004, CNN released new details about the flights, made public by the commission.
"[...] The second section also describes eleven flights have left the United States between September 13 and September 24, 2001, carrying Saudi nationals, including members of the Bin Laden family.
˝ Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, Rihab Massoud, coordinator of the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Washington, DC, contacted Dale Watson, assistant director of the anti-terrorist division of the FBI shortly after the attack asking him to help out the citizens of the kingdom of the country ˝, says the document.
The committee said that the coordinator of security and terrorism-cons in the White House, Richard Clarke seems to be the highest ranking official to have been involved in the authorization of flights.
˝ President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney asserted before the commission had not discussed with officials of the Saudi government about the flights before they départ˝, déclare le document. ˝Le président a déclaré à la commission qu’il n’avait appris l’existence du sujet qu’en lisant les journaux.˝
La commission affirme que tous les citoyens saoudiens ont été filtrés par le FBI pour s’assurer qu’ils ne représentaient pas une menace pour la sécurité nationale, et qu’aucun terroriste ne s’échappait des États-Unis sur aucun des vols saoudiens. » L6
Quelques remarques sur ces informations. D’abord, la commission tenta de se faire rassurante en affirmant que le FBI avait vu à ce qu’aucun terroriste ne leur file entre les mains. Très bien. Pay out a terrorist is one thing but letting go someone who potentially has information about the perpetrators is another, very different. While it is indeed possible that the Arabs who fled the country had themselves done nothing wrong, it seems unlikely that any of them could provide any information that can inform investigators about Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda network.
Moreover, it is true that Richard Clarke was the highest-ranking official to have given its approval on these flights, a U.S. administration with a modicum of common sense Would it not have been outraged by such a decision? However, no disciplinary action was taken against her.
Instead, Richard Clarke was then promoted.
How can we address both serious investigation of this magnitude and simply let slip two dozen relatives of Osama bin Laden? For a country willing to grab at Nicolet guilty of such terrible attacks, a similar decision should it not be regarded as treason, nothing less?
What should we think then learn that the Bush administration made repeal of laws dating back several centuries, defended by the U.S. Constitution in order to give himself the power to detain indefinitely anyone it deems prisoner linked directly or indirectly to a terrorist organization, and without even having to charge him with anything?
Would it not have been more appropriate, particularly in the case of members of the Bin Laden family, to house them all temporarily in a U.S. facility safe, assuming that the real reason for their having to leave the country prematurely was actually protect them? In doing so, it would have been possible to have them available for questioning as as the investigation progressed.
As for the statement of George W. Bush, who says he was informed of the existence of this story in the paper only, it is interesting that when the president finally agreed to appear before the inquiry - after long opposed the idea - this is just under four very specific conditions that it should submit: First, it does not take the oath, and secondly, it was imperative to appear accompanied by Vice President Dick Cheney and thirdly, its appearance should be in camera, that is to say in private, out of reach of media and public, and finally, no recording (audio or video) would be permitted.
In this regard, here is an excerpt published April 30, 2004 by news agency Reuters.
"President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were questioned in camera by a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks in order to know if they could have done more to counter a growing threat Al Qaeda before the attacks. [...]
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney agreed under pressure from victims' families and the Committee to answer questions, but only under the condition to appear together in private, without record of the session. They were not under oath. [...]
Bush was prepared to close questioning about his reaction to a presidential memo dated informational August 6, 2001, entitled ˝ Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States ˝ . The latter claimed that members of Al Qaeda were in the United States and that the FBI had detected suspicious patterns of activity consistent with preparations ˝ piracy or other types of attacks. ˝ "M3
Firstly, why the president felt it necessary to issue the so many conditions before agreeing to testify on an important subject? A president had done nothing wrong should it not, for the sake of transparency and leadership, agreed to answer by himself and under oath all questions necessary to the sight of all? Does it not also the capital of registering such meeting, whether to refer Subsequent to his statements or simply by consideration of the historical value of the testimony? Apparently not.
Yet almost a month earlier, after opposing the appearance of his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice before the commission, President Bush justified his change of position.
This excerpt from the MSNBC shows us the paradox of presidential words. Then suddenly it became important for the president that the people are well informed about the months before Sept. 11 - as was related to Condoleezza Rice, at least - the same logic did when he was strangely more question his own appearance.
Also, what about the existence of this memo which Reuters said presidential reference end of the article? As reported, President Bush was handed a month before the attacks in a paper entitled ˝ Ben Laden determined to attack inside the United States ˝. That says a lot about the context in which U.S. officials evolved into the fateful day.
Despite a very unconvincing attempt to explain Condoleezza Rice during her appearance before the commission that the memo was in fact a mere brief history of efforts by Osama bin Laden to strike U.S. United, the fact remains that this memo indicated clearly a state of awareness on the threat.
Especially since the memo was far from an exception to ce moment. En effet, dans les mois qui précédèrent les attentats, au moins onze pays avertirent les États-Unis de l’imminence d’une attaque contre eux (W100). De nombreux avertissements internes furent également émis. Survolons brièvement certains de ces signaux d’alarme qui auraient normalement dû rehausser la vigilance des systèmes de défense américains.
En date du 16 septembre 2001, le quotidien britannique The Telegraph rapportait ceci.
« Des officiels du renseignement israélien affirment avoir averti leurs homologues américains le mois dernier que des attaques terroristes d’envergure sur des cibles hautement visibles sur le territoire des États-Unis were imminent. [...]
The Telegraph has learned that two senior experts from Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell containing up to 200 terrorists allegedly preparing a big operation. [...]» E3
June 4, 2002, The New York Times reported this.
"Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview that the intelligence services of Egypt warned U.S. officials about a week before the terrorist attacks of 11 September that the network of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, was at an advanced stage in the execution of a major operation against an American target. E4 [...]»
April 16, 2007, Agence France-Presse reported this.
"The French intelligence services were alerted in January 2001, eight months before the attacks of Sept. 11, their American counterparts a draft of hijacking American Al-Qaeda, said Monday in Le Monde on Tuesday [ sic].
The daily published the facsimile of the first page of a 'position paper' classified 'confidential Defence, Directorate General for External Security (DGSE spy). The five-page memorandum, dated January 5, 2001 and titled 'Project of hijacking by Islamic radicals', was passed, ensures Le Monde a few days later at the head of the CIA in Paris, Bill Murray . [...]
The note also refers to seven airlines may be the target of this diversion, the two U.S. airlines targeted by the terrorists of Sept. 11 (American Airlines and United Airlines) have been almost 3000 dead.
Questioned by AFP, the DGSE did not want comment on these revelations. "The W99
June 12, 2002, the London Times reported this.
"A Moroccan secret service agent claims to have infiltrated Al Qaeda for two years to escape the shadow of last summer to warn his superiors that the terrorist group was planning" something spectacular "in New York. [...]
Mr. [Hassan] Dabou was not sure what exactly the target, knowing only that it would be a 'major operation in New York in the summer or Fall 2001 '.
It seems that those responsible Secret Service had taken seriously the intelligence of one of their most experienced informants and had immediately forwarded the details to Washington. [...]
reports from Casablanca [Morocco] claim that Mr. Dabou was transported secretly flown to Washington, where he cooperated with agents of the intelligence services of the United States when the terrorists struck.
evidence that western agencies [intelligence] have not pursued the lead over Al Qaeda Morocco last summer accumulate. [...]» W228
November 2, 2007, CNN reported this.
"Saudi Arabia could have helped the United States to prevent Al Qaeda attacks in 2001 against New York and Washington if American officials had consulted Saudi authorities in a manner 'credible', said the former ambassador of the kingdom in a documentary aired Thursday.
Reviews of Prince Bandar bin Sultan are similar to remarks made this week by Saudi King Abdullah, who has hinted that England could have prevented the bombings of 2005 in London if the warnings from Riyadh [Saudi capital] were considered.
On the Arab satellite network Al-Arabiya, Bandar - now national security adviser to King Abdullah - said Thursday that Saudi intelligence services 'actively pursuing' most of the September 11 terrorist 'accurately'.
'If the security authorities [U.S.] had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened,' he said. [...]» W200
On 7 September 2002, the BBC reported this.
" An aide to former Taliban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, revealed he had been sent to warn American diplomats and United Nations that Osama bin Laden was on the verge of unleashing a massive attack on the territory of the United States. [...]
He first visited the U.S. consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan and the United Nations. But none of his warnings not caught the attention.
A U.S. official explained why:
˝ We hear a lot of this kind ˝ he said. ˝ When people say that the non-stop sky will fall on your head and it does not happen, a sort of 'letting go' takes place. [...]» ˝ E2
Thus, the Israeli intelligence, Egyptian, French, Saudi, Taliban and Morocco, to name a few, knew that something unusual was afoot, to the point of predicting the imminent. Are we to believe that the secret services of the greatest world power did not see it coming?
In this regard, here is an excerpt from USA Today, dated June 4, 2002.
"The U.S. intelligence services have surprised members of Al Qaeda in discussing of an impending major terrorist attack and in the weeks before Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terrorist group, but the steals and field reports did not specify where or when the attack would occur, according to officials U.S.. [...]
Some of these indices can be found hidden among 350,000 pages of documents submitted by the CIA for the hearings:
- Reports discussing the possibility of suicide bombings, plots to strike aircraft on buildings and attacks against the Pentagon, World Trade Center and other important targets.
- interceptions e members of Al Qaeda, even dating back to September 10, talking cryptically of a major attack. Two senior U.S. intelligence services, paraphrasing highly classified intercepts, say they included remarks such as' Good things happen ',' Watch the news' and 'Tomorrow is a big day for us. " [...]» W159
The intelligence services of the United States had thus also information about an impending attack. Following is a very interesting article from CNS news service, published September 19, 2002.
"The chief investigator of the joint inquiry of the House of Representatives and the Senate said in the first public hearing Wednesday that Congress was warned that Osama bin Laden was preparing a major attack against the interests American or Israeli two months before September 11, 2001.
There ˝ a moderate flow, but relatively steady, information in intelligence indicating possible terrorist attacks inside the United States ˝, according to the personnel director of the Joint Committee, Eleanor Hill. [...]
Based on information gathered by the committee, a total of 28 documents of the intelligence services were accumulated since June 1998 suggesting that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States, including eleven of them who indicated that an attack was imminent after March 2001.
addition, twelve indicators ˝ ˝ information led analysts to believe that Al Qaeda would use planes to strike targets in Washington, DC, and New York. [...]
The lack of corroboration does not prevent officials of the intelligence services to issue a stark warning in a presentation to leaders of Congress in July 2001.
˝ We believe that [bin Laden] will launch a terrorist attack against important U.S. interests and / or Israel in the coming weeks ˝, said the warning. ˝ The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict casualties in large numbers against U.S. interests or facilities. Preparations for the attack were taken. Attack will occur with little or no warning.
˝
Hill told the committee that adequate resources were not assigned to do the analysis of the threat posed by Bin Laden because of competing demands within the government.
˝ The intelligence community is meeting its 'customers'. Customers are other parts of the government requiring them to provide information on certain points ˝, "she explained. ˝ There were customers that they should meet, they felt the need to meet and demanded to be satisfied on subjects other than Al Qaeda. [...]» ˝ E11
Certainly, this new information coming counter the argument that U.S. intelligence does took seriously the warnings not foreigners, they went to take the extraordinary step to inform the Congress of an impending attack, even specifying that preparations had been made.
We also learn that U.S. intelligence agencies had indications to suggest that planes could be used to attack Washington and New York. Yet, as we shall see later, military exercises sent a considerable proportion of the military air fleet away from New York and Washington on September 11, resulting in weakening great defense capabilities of the nerve center of the United States, despite many warnings.
However, the most important information we received barely covered the words of Eleanor Hill, who revealed that some elements of government, implicitly powerful, knowingly directed the resources of intelligence on runways other than those related Al Qaeda despite the warning delivered to Congress. But why
inform Congress of a serious threat to then direct the workforce in a different direction? While some observers will not notice once more that the mere reflection of a poorly oiled gears of bureaucracy, others will deduce that this is overwhelming evidence that the U.S. government really did not want to stop this threat from al Qaeda.
added that in August 2001, at the zenith of all these warnings, which he delivered to Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice, John Ashcroft rejected a request to increase the budget allocated to the fight against Al Qaeda. Here's an excerpt published in Mondo Washington, March 21, 2006.
"[...] From the beginning of his mandate, the Minister of Justice John Ashcroft first received, then refused briefings on the threat of Al Qaeda. Ashcroft rejected a request to add $ 58 million to fight Al Qaeda in August 2001. In May of that year, Ashcroft issued a memo which outlined the strategic objectives of the Department of Justice. It made no mention of terrorism-cons. Subsequently, in his testimony before the commission on Sept. 11, Ashcroft blamed the Clinton administration for failures relating to terrorism and said he believed that any attack would come from a foreign country. [...]» E1
Then mention the case of lawyer David Schippers, known for his role in advising chief investigator in the indictment in 1998 by President Bill Clinton for misconduct - or 'impeachment'. According to multiple reports from various sources within the intelligence services at the approach of the attacks of September 11, Schippers also had good reason to believe that a major attack was imminent on U.S. soil, specifically in Manhattan .
But when he tried to contact government officials to pass on information that he considered crucial, he met with bureaucratic inertia at the highest levels. Here is an excerpt from article in the Indianapolis Star May 18, 2002.
"Since taking part in the vote on the impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives, virtually no one paid attention to David Schippers. Now, people listen. [...] When
CBS News revealed Wednesday explosive information that President George W. Bush had been warned that the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden planned to hijack airliners, Schippers had the impression that he gave reason.
After all, just weeks before September 11, Schippers had attempted to convey to officials in Washington, DC, for information on a possible attack against buildings in lower Manhattan, but was ignored. The same thing had happened to him before the bombing in Oklahoma City in April 1995. [...]
September 13, 2001, in an interview broadcast on radio station WRRK Pittsburgh, Schippers said that federal authorities had received information about any involvement in the Middle East in the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as plans to attack buildings in lower Manhattan.
He had attempted to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft, the White House, and even leaders of the House of Representatives with whom he worked. But no one returned his calls. [...]» W195
Thus, leaders of the intelligence services took the trouble to warn Congress that a terrorist attack was imminent, but when a source as credible as David Schippers tried to pass on sensitive information on the subject, nobody would listen.
Consider then the following excerpt, reprinted the Morning Edition radio program aired on the NPR (National Public Radio) on the morning of September 11 as part of their live coverage of the attacks. During the show, host Bob Edwards gave up the antenna to the NPR correspondent in Congress, David Welna, who made the following statement.
"[...] I spoke with Congressman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat and member of the Inter-Services Armes, who said recently that the CIA director warned that an attack might occur, an imminent attack of this nature against the United States. So this was not entirely unexpected. [...]» W21
Again, all were therefore not surprised by the dramatic events.
The CIA director, George Tenet held the position since 1997. Strangely, after 11 September, there was absolutely no blamed by the Bush administration for his agency's inability to prevent terrorist attacks, although he knew yet the nature and imminence in advance. Tenet retired himself in the summer of 2004.
*****
us continue peeling information sparsely scattered through the media with this excerpt from article in the Times UK, February 11, 2005.
"The U.S. aviation authorities have received numerous warnings of attacks by Al Qaeda during the six months preceding September 11, including five of them that mentioned hijackings and two that evoked suicide operations, he emerged.
A previously published report by the commission to investigate the September 11 attacks against the United States reveals that the federal authority Aviation (FAA) received 52 intelligence reports about Al Qaeda between April and September 2001. [...]
The startling findings of the report of the Committee, dated August 2004, emerged following an investigation by the New York Times.
The full report was banned from publication by the White House for over five months. A declassified version was heavily modified, filed in the National Archives two weeks ago.
The number of reports about Osama bin Laden or his terrorist network received by the FAA in the months before Sept. 11 was so high between March and May confidential submissions to the threat of Al Qaeda were presented to security officials for 19 of the busiest airports in the United States. [...]» E7
Once again, why bother to issue so many warnings for the aviation system while the intelligence services found themselves in parallel away from the threat, directed to other subjects? Could it be in order to protect themselves against future shocks and to subsequently relegate the blame on the FAA?
noted elsewhere on this excerpt from another article.
" [...] The report of the Sept. 11 commission criticized the FAA for failing to strengthen security measures following the reports and accused of leaving a false sense of security to take over. [...]»
It is this same FAA in the days leading up to September 11, 2001, issued a ban on Salman Rushdie to fly, author notoriously despised throughout the Islamic world following the publication of his book 'The Satanic Verses in 1988. This book was then banned by at least eleven Islamic countries due to the description of the considered irreverent Prophet Muhammad in it. Still, as Rushdie, Indo-British nationality, received special protection from the FAA and American intelligence services when he was in the U.S. as part of promoting his new book.
Here is an excerpt from the London Times, dated September 27, 2001.
"author Salman Rushdie believes that U.S. authorities were aware of an imminent terrorist attack when the intercontinental flights were banned in Canada and the United States just a week before the attacks . [...]
The FAA has advised the publisher of the author that the U.S. intelligence service had provided them with a warning about 'something in the air', without providing details.
The FAA confirmed that it had increased its security measures against Mr. Rushdie but refused to disclose the reason. "W186
How a global superpower like the United States could she at once take such precautions before the attacks, to the point of worrying about the safety of foreign authors, and then fail so miserably to protect the heart its infrastructure, namely New York and Washington, despite the largest military defense system in modern history? The amount of information available in the months leading up to September 11 Did not think of what to do?
Nearly five years later, the British Times reported additional information in a very interesting article dated March 25, 2006. This tells us how the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui's French - considered at the time as being the twentieth terrorist attacks of 11 September and one of them to be arrested - before any procedures outlined FBI suspicious when approaching the attacks.
"[...] This week, an abundance of new evidence on how the FBI bungled the investigation into Moussaoui became so by his Pythonesque absurdity that even the families of victims have roared with laughter.
In the witness box is mounted Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui. He was called by the Crown, but became the star witness for the defense.
He said he warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was employed by Al Qaeda, he was possibly plotting to hijack a plane and crush on a building. He said that two of his superiors, David Frasca and Michael Maltbie, have regularly barred from obtaining a warrant to search Moussaoui's apartment. He accused the men of criminal negligence.
Mr. Maltbie told him that getting a warrant, which could be complicated, could damage his career prospects - those Maltbie. Mr. Maltbie has been promoted since. [...]» E8
then observe the approach of the New York daily Newsday mail about this, in its edition of March 21, 2006.
"The FBI agent who was placed under arrest Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that the fraud of Moussaoui as a student aviation had never cheated, but he says he has been unable to pursue his suspicions to a terrorist plot involving hijacking plane by his supervisors, he has described as careerists guilty of criminal negligence ˝ ˝.
While the trial resumed with a sentence of death penalty for Moussaoui after a week of time to investigate the illegal procedures with witnesses by the government lawyer, Carla Martin, Special Agent Minnesota Harry Samit said during his interrogation that he had written about 70 memos to FBI headquarters on terrorist plans likely Moussaoui, arrested between August 16 and September 11, all in vain. [...]» W27
We can therefore add to the table an FBI agent trying to warn his bosses 70 times without them having taken action, one of them stating that to continue this track could harm his career. While an expression like obstruction of justice ˝ ˝ could easily come to mind, let us consider the following excerpt, published by AFP (American Free Press) five days earlier on the same subject.
"[...] ˝ You needed people in Washington you? ˝, Samit asked the defense counsel, Edward MacMahon.
˝ And they have not done? ˝ ˝
Samit replied No. ˝ [...]
Moussaoui is the only man to stand trial in the United States in connection with the attacks of September 11, which cost the lives of nearly 3000 people.
The Crown wants to prove he deserves the death penalty because his lies ˝ ˝ investigators have given the time needed for suicide bombers realize the attacks on New York and Washington.
The defense lawyers argue that the government knew far more than Moussaoui on the seriousness of the threat, and that [the government] has failed to take adequate measures to contain it. [...]» E9
hard not to notice the irony of the main argument of the Crown - which claimed that if Moussaoui had been more cooperative with the government, the attacks could be thwarted - when we think to patrons of Harry Samit, the FBI, who blocked efforts to investigate their agent on even Moussaoui. If the government had so desired to prevent attacks, FBI officials why they refused therefore to provide a search warrant in the investigation of Moussaoui?
Apparently they had some rather top prospects. For, why Michael Maltbie he then received a promotion rather than being fired on the spot? In context, the term ˝ ˝ bureaucratic constraint used by the defense lawyer, Edward MacMahon, not only is it the air of understatement? Note also that short sentence slipped towards the end of the same section.
"Samit finally got a criminal warrant [to search] September 11, 2001, hours after the fatal attacks. [...]»
Is not it incredible? All these warnings of Harry Samit, who mentioned Al Qaeda and the threat to use a plane to smash into a building, were not enough to issue a search warrant, but a few hours after the event, the green light was suddenly given.
Moreover, it was not only vis-à-vis the apartment Moussaoui that FBI officials refused to issue a search warrant. Indeed, after have seized the personal computer of Moussaoui when he was arrested Aug. 17, 2001, officials from the FBI and Justice Department also declined an application for a warrant from the FBI which would have allowed them to open and scan the disk drive of the computer of the suspect.
Here is an excerpt about this article published by MSNBC on October 1, 2001.
"senior officials of the Justice Department and FBI have refused a request by FBI agents in Minneapolis last month, demanding a warrant special monitoring and cons spy on suspected Islamist terrorism, that officials Now consider potentially related to the Sept. 11 plot to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon, NEWSWEEK has learned.
handling the case of Zacarias Moussaoui - who is now detained in New York - raised new questions about how the agents of American policing treated crucial information which, in retrospect, could alert them to advance about the terrorist plot that caused the most deaths in U.S. history.
Sources familiar with the matter have revealed to NEWSWEEK that FBI agents in Minneapolis took the computer Moussaoui in mid-August after officials of a flight school in Eagan, Minnesota, have informed that the 33 year old French citizen was acting suspiciously. Moussaoui wanted to just practice making turns - not interested in takeoffs or landings - and has specifically advised to fly over the airspace over New York, officials say.
But while Moussaoui himself was detained on minor charges of immigration-related August 17, the Minneapolis agents saw does not grant permission for officials of the Department of Justice to examine the hard disk of the computer of the suspect. [...]
When officers finally were able to access the hard drive of your computer after the attacks of Sept. 11, they discovered new information that made them even more suspicious of Moussaoui. [...]
However, following the September 11 attacks, the FISA warrant refusal of the [Act information and monitor foreign] has created tension between the field agents in Minneapolis and their superiors in the Department of Justice and the FBI in Washington. The officials in Washington remain intransigent and show that there were insufficient grounds to approve the warrant based on what the Minneapolis agents were holding. ˝ It does not seem to be any disagreement on the fact that the statutory criteria (for a FISA warrant) were not met ˝, said a top official of U.S. policing. The law requires that the agency demonstrates that the suspect is a ˝ ˝ agent of a foreign power or terrorist group, that field agents in Minneapolis never made, officials say. But different
responsible for maintaining order to show equally insistent on the fact that a more aggressive approach in the investigation of Moussaoui - combined with other information in the possession of U.S. agencies - could have provided sufficient clues about the impending plot. ˝ The question that now arises is that if two and two were added together, they could get much more information about this man - or even prevent the attack ˝, said an investigator. "T7
Thus, according to officials who argue that legal procedures were properly applied in this case, the logic of American law would be that until the police do not know without a shadow of a doubt that the suspect is an affiliate member of a terrorist organization, it is forbidden to take concrete steps to discover whether it represents a threat or not.
In other words: 'We've arrested and we hold Moussaoui, who seemed suspicious and we have also seized his computer. However, there is no question that computer to look to see what it contains because we're not entirely convinced that Moussaoui was a terrorist - despite the fact that our intelligence officer believes that it is plotting to crash a plane into a building, and despite the fact that more than a dozen countries have warned of an impending danger similar and even though the Congress was informed that such a threat to the country '.
How is it possible to protect a nation after such an argument? For the latest information, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was still intact before the attacks of 11 September. Stated that he just about search warrants? The full text follows the translated version for accuracy :
"The right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, their homes, their possessions and documents should not be violated, and no search warrant should be issued, unless you have a reasonable cause, supported by oath or statement describing the precise location, the individual or object to being searched or seized. "
" The right of the People to Be Secure In Their persons, houses, papers, and effects, Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Shall Not Be Violated, and no Warrants shall "end, goal upon probable cause, Supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly Describing the place to be searched, and the Persons or Things to Be Seized. "W98
So when the FBI agent said that Moussaoui is serving Al Qaeda and that he is plotting to hijack a plane in order to crush on a building, is not exactly a reason reasonable to issue a warrant to search the computer?
Moreover, since the Fourth Amendment places the search and seizure on an equal footing (searches and seizures), having already seized the computer of Moussaoui during his arrest thus implies we had a reasonable basis for doing so. So why then have treated differently the search of the computer was seized? If the pattern was considered reasonable to seize the computer, it had to be as well to search it.
However, since the author of these lines is the holder of any degree in Law, the above reasoning does not appear only as a purely logical exercise, and does not represent a legislative analysis of the formal and valid U.S. Constitution. All observations of a subject matter expert will also be welcome if they can help clarify the issue.
But speaking of Zacarias Moussaoui, let us consider for a moment on a special request made by it and reported by the BBC in an article in the July 3, 2002.
"The only man to have been charged in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks asked to testify before Congress.
Zacarias Moussaoui claims that he, as well as suspected terrorists, were under surveillance by the FBI before September, and that intelligence agencies allowed the attacks to occur.
This is the latest in a series of handwritten motions by Moussaoui to the attention of the judge overseeing his trial.
In it, he says it has important information and evidence ˝ ˝ in connection with the actions of the FBI before September.
He asked to get the opportunity to share his thoughts with U.S. lawmakers, who hold hearings on intelligence failures that led to the attacks.
Specifically, Moussaoui said that authorities were monitoring at least one of the suspected terrorists last summer.
The FBI chose not to make arrests, he says, because they wanted the attacks of September 11 occurred, giving the U.S. an excuse, he argues, to destroy Afghanistan. [...]
It is highly unlikely that the accused gets its moment in the spotlight of Congress. [...]» G11
Obviously, Zacarias Moussaoui was never allowed to tell his story yet effective before a Congress that held hearings on exactly this topic.
The next extract also exhibits an extraordinary coincidence that, not in doubt, bring grist to the mill to the position of Moussaoui, who claims that the secret services Americans had placed some Sept. 11 terrorist under surveillance before the attacks. Indeed, as we briefly mentioned earlier, two of the 19 hijackers lived with an FBI agent a year before the attacks.
An excerpt appeared on CBS News September 9, 2002.
"Two of the Sept. 11 terrorist who lived in San Diego in 2000 rented a room from a man who was working as an informant for the FBI, which highlights the lack of cooperation between agencies in maintaining the enforcement and intelligence agencies in the country. [...]
The CIA was keeping an eye on these men after the two individuals have participated in a summit of Al Qaeda in Malaysia in January 2000.
Almihdar and Alhazmi moved into the house in September 2000. Almihdar left six weeks later when qu'Alhazmi left at the end of the year.
During this period, the FBI informant prayed with them and even helped one of them to open a bank account. Alhazmi and Almihdar have taken flying lessons in a flight school while they lived in San Diego.
The two men were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed the Pentagon on Sept. 11. [...]» G8
Note initially the willingness of the author of the article to blame the very first sentence, a lack of cooperation between the FBI and the CIA, rather than relying adhere strictly to the facts. This introduction is nothing short of an interpretative approach, which is spurring the reader from the first sentence on the concept that it must have the news. Why not approach the subject with a conventional journalistic approach and not simply report the facts?
Note also the version of MSNBC in this case.
" Initially, FBI director Bob Mueller insisted that there was nothing the agency could have done to infiltrate the conspiracy of September 11. This position was changed with time - and could now change again. NEWSWEEK has learned that one of the informants the agency had a close relationship with two of the terrorists: he was their roommate.
connection, newly discovered by investigators from Congress, has stunned some top officials of the Department anti-terrorism and raises new concerns about information sharing between agencies of law enforcement and intelligence. The two terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdar were hardly unknown to the intelligence community. The CIA was first spotted in January 2000 when the two Saudi nationals showed up at a summit of Al Qaeda in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Internally, the FBI agents prétextèrent for months that if the CIA had been quicker to transfer its files on the two men, the agency could have them deliver a more aggressive fighter. [...]
But it was not until August 23, 2001 that the CIA has issued an urgent statement to the border agencies and maintaining order, identifying the two men as potential terrorists ˝ ˝. At that time, it was too late. The agency has not made this connection in San Diego until a few days after Sept. 11, when the informant heard the names of terrorists and that the Pentagon called his supervisor. ˝ I know these guys ˝, told the informant, referring to Almihdar and Alhazmi. ˝ They were my roommates.
˝
But the belated discovery has upset some members of the intelligence committees of the Senate and House investigating attacks 11. The panel is tentatively begin hearings as early as 18 September [2002], pressed by a deadline at the end of the year. But some members are now worried not to get to the bottom of the story by then. Support for legislation to create an investigation committee consisting of experts, similar to investigations after Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, increases. At this point only, say some members, the public will learn if he no secrets surrounding September 11 are still buried in government files. [...]» G12
It is important in this case to distinguish between the facts found and the justification of these facts by the press - here are the facts that relationship (roommates) that existed between the FBI informant and the two terrorists, the rationale being this alleged lack of communication between the CIA and the FBI, again quoted in this article. The lack of communication between agencies is purely one of the plausible hypotheses that could explain the facts.
All things considered, is this not an extraordinary coincidence that these two terrorists have been so close secret service? The hypothesis that some terrorists were under FBI surveillance before the attacks, as alleged among other Zacarias Moussaoui, she not only becomes more feasible on this information?
Now back on the Boston Globe article quoted earlier, an extract of which is particularly worthy of a second mention at this point.
"[...] Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who provided significant financial support to two terrorist [Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar], worked for the Saudi government.
Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation who spent $ 465 to $ 3,700 in March 2000 after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar - two of the 11 terrorist September - to find apartments and make contacts in San Diego, before they begin the flight training. [...]» W20
Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar being precisely the same two terrorists who were roommates of the FBI agent in San Diego in 2000, the coincidences do not they begin to multiply?
Moreover, it is interesting to know the FBI flatly refused a meeting with a committee of inquiry of Congress with this famous informant who lived with two terrorists. Here is an excerpt from article by Associated Press September 7, 2004.
"Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House Tuesday to have concealed evidence that might have linked Saudi Arabia to the terrorists of September 11.
The charge stems from the refusal to allow FBI investigators to a congressional investigation and the independent September 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who was the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 terrorists.
In his book Intelligence Matters', Graham, co-chairman of the congressional investigation with Congressman Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said a FBI official had written in November 2002 and told them that "the administration would not allow a personal interview with the source '. On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter 'incriminating evidence' and said that 'the reason for this cover-up leads directly to the White House. "
The report added to the doubts against a Saudi role in terror plot. "W231
Why the U.S. administration opposed Does that its own investigation committees meet with the FBI informant? Something to hide?
***** Let's take a look at the extract following article appeared in The New York Times on August 17, 2005.
"A team of military intelligence has repeatedly contacted the FBI in 2000 to warn him of the existence of a terrorist cell based in the United States which included the Chief Band of the September 11 attacks, according to a veteran intelligence officer who says the army have now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly.
The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later have prevented us from sharing this information with the agency.
Colonel Shaffer said in an interview Monday night that the small program information highly confidential and known as Able Danger, had identified the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta and three other terrorists of the future by name in mid-2000, and attempted to organize a meeting that summer with agents of the FBI headquarters in Washington to convey this information.
But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the FBI at the last minute, which left the agency without the information, according to Colonel Shaffer, could have led Mohammed Atta and other terrorists while the Sept. 11 attacks were still being prepared.
˝ I was almost made to insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should be considered ˝, Colonel Shaffer said about his efforts in bringing the evidence of the intelligence program to the FBI in 2000 and early 2001. [...]
The Defense Department did not dispute the testimony of Colonel Shaffer, a 42 year old native of Kansas City, Missouri, the first military officer associated with this program to publicly acknowledge his role. [...]
Colonel Shaffer said he decided to allow his name to be used in part because of his frustration with the statement issued last week by the leaders the commission [of inquiry into the attacks of September 11], Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton.
The commission said in its final report last year that U.S. intelligence agencies had not identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist before Sept. 11, 2001 when he led an American Airlines plane crashed into the One of the World Trade Center in New York.
A spokesman for the commission did not return repeated calls Tuesday for comment. [...]» E10
This story teaches us that at least four terrorists, including the mastermind of operations, had been identified over a year before the attacks by U.S. military intelligence. More importantly, the investigation was again nipped in the bud. This has also confirmed the theory that Moussaoui claimed that some terrorists were under the surveillance of U.S. secret agencies before the attacks.
Following revelations of Colonel Shaffer, the political environment will be significantly shaken for a few months. Here is an excerpt from article published November 26, 2005, some three months later, in the Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul.
"A top-secret military program set up six years ago to investigate the terrorist network Al Qaeda a new cause heated debate about the attacks of September 11, 2001.
officers and contractors of the military intelligence service who led the covert operation named Able Danger say more than a year before the attacks, the operation had identified four of the 19 terrorist plot and produced a record that pointed the ringleader Mohammed Atta finger.
These claims contradict the findings of the Sept. 11 commission established by Congress. In its final report last year, the commission spread responsibility for the attacks, but found none of the terrorists, some of whom lived in the United States before September 11, had been identified before the tragedy.
Now many in Congress want more answers.
Friday, Republican Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a letter signed by a bipartisan group of 246 legislators demanding that the officers and contractors of the program [Able Danger] be allowed to testify during open hearings before Congress.
˝ Refusal Additional ... we can only lead to the conclusion that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the idea that members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding Able Danger ˝, said the letter. ˝ This does not suggest a concern for national security, but rather an attempt to prevent potentially embarrassing facts are revealed.
˝ [...]
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a recipient of the Bronze Star and Former officer's operational Able Danger was the first to reveal details of the program earlier this year, says the Pentagon lawyers have aborted attempts team to send their findings to the FBI before the attacks. He claims that after the attacks, staff of the commission on Sept. 11 have met, and other officials of Able Danger, but they then failed to follow up on details that they had presented them.
Captain Navy Scotte Philpott, who led the Able Danger mission, said in a statement before the Pentagon prohibits former members of Able Danger to speak publicly about the program, ˝ My story has not changed. Atta was identified by Able Danger From January to February 2000.
˝
After initially refusing to comment, Pentagon officials confirmed that Able Danger existed.
Meanwhile, Maj. Eric Kleinsmith told the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 21 that it had complied with orders to destroy a large quantity of computer data produced by Able Danger. Kleinsmith and other Pentagon officials have cited privacy laws, which they say prohibit the government to keep secret files on citizens or non-American citizens who are in the country under a legal visa.
In a speech to the House of Representatives last month, [Curt] Weldon suggested that information was concealed. ˝ I am not a conspiracy theorist ˝, he said, ˝ but there is something terribly wrong.
˝
Weldon also accuses the Pentagon of engaging in a smear campaign against Shaffer, 42, since the Colonel spoke publicly - by revoking his security clearance, by hanging and spreading alleged details of his personnel file to reporters and congressional assistants. [...]» E12
A significant new information emerges from this story: computer data from Able Danger were destroyed. And the justification was puzzling: indeed, how the rights to privacy of the September 11 terrorist can seriously be cited to explain the destruction of data? Pushing the argument further, why would she Able Danger was originally established if the law on confidentiality prevented him from amassing information about them?
But back briefly on Curt Weldon's speech before the House of Representatives and see more precisely what he had to say about the smear campaign against the Pentagon by Anthony Shaffer.
"[...] This is an effort to prevent the American people know the facts about how we could have avoided September 11 and people hiding in this very moment. And they destroy the career of a military officer [Anthony Shaffer] to get there. We can not let this happen. I do not care whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can not let the career of Lieutenant-Colonel to be destroyed because of some bureaucrats in the intelligence agency of the Defense. If we let this pass in silence, then someone wearing a uniform will feel protected in the future. Because we have failed them. [...] We are witnesses of lies and misrepresentation. [...]» W219
Of all the issues arising from the revelations surrounding Able Danger, the following particularly stand out from others: why the commission investigating the attacks said she in her final report that None of the terrorists was not identified before the attacks, while members of Able Danger had yet provided their information clearly contradict this conclusion?
Is it possible that some data about terrorists destroyed reveal information potentially embarrassing or compromising? Difficult not to emphasize at this point, some editorial written by Louis Freeh, FBI director from 1993 to 2001. This article appeared in the respected Wall Street Journal November 17, 2005.
"[...] Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation, Able Danger have placed the spotlight a missed opportunity which could potentially have prevented September 11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and possibly by photograph) as an agent of Al Qaeda operating in the United States. Subsequently, military officers in charge of Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been established for this purpose. Why? [...]
Even the least experienced investigator will know immediately that the name and photo of Atta in 2000 was precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has repeatedly used to prevent attacks and apprehend terrorists. Nevertheless, the Committee on September 11 has inexplicably concluded that this was not of any historical significance. " This astounding conclusion - coupled with their failure to investigate Able Danger and include its findings - raises serious questions of credibility to the commission and, if allegations prove correct, could render the commission historically insignificant itself . [...]
Thomas Kean, chairman of the committee on September 11, reacted to [the disclosure of the existence of] Able Danger by the public relations approach usual in Washington. He attacked the Bush administration and demanded that the Pentagon is conducting a 'survey' to assess the 'credibility' of Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott - rather than demanding an independent investigation of what had malfunctioned in the first place. This from a former New Jersey governor who, like other commissioners, regularly appeared in public with his own conclusions on September 11 before the investigation commission is completed well before all facts are taken into consideration! This while sweeping the back of his hand major conflicts of interest of the commission itself about barrier to information sharing within the intelligence community! [...]
no wonder that the families [of victims] on 11 September were outraged by these revelations, and they require the establishment of a 'new' commission to investigate. [...]» W192
It is interesting to learn that former FBI director also raises the same kinds of questions, questions perfectly legitimate for that matter. This is especially true when you discover that at least five of the 19 terrorists had received training on military bases the U.S. military, no less, as reported on MSNBC Newsweek September 15, 2001.
"U.S. military sources have provided information to the FBI suggesting that five suspected terrorists who are on the planes used in Tuesday's attacks received training at secure military facilities in the United States over 90 years .
Three suspected terrorists have entered the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida - deemed to be the "cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation '- on their driver's license and vehicle registration as their address, according to a senior source at the U.S. Navy.
Another suspected terrorists would be driven into strategies and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Alaska, said another senior Pentagon responsible. The fifth man would have received language education at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.
But there are slight variations between military training records and the official list of suspected terrorists FBI - or in the spelling of their names or their dates of birth. A military source said it was possible that terrorists have stolen the identities of foreign nationals who have studied at U.S. facilities. [...]» W110
Despite the possibility that terrorists have stolen the identity of the Arabs, the official government list published on 14 September 2001 by the FBI (W141), remains unchanged to this day. Worse, the U.S. government continues to publicly use the identities of the Arabs despite the fact that many of them are found alive after September 11! You read that right.
Indeed, in the days following the attacks, some people saw their names and photographs appear throughout the world media (pH-16.28), being misused and blaming them for involvement in the terrorist plot, which involved 'They denied it loudly. Here's an excerpt on this from the BBC, released September 23, 2001.
"Another man described by the FBI as a terrorist in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York was found alive and healthy.
identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of perpetrated the attacks are now in doubt.
The pilot Waleed Al Shehri Saudi Arabia was one of five men named by the FBI for deliberately planned Flight 11 American Airlines on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
His photograph was published and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.
He now proclaims his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.
He told journalists that the place had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and he was in Morocco when they happened. [...]
He acknowledged that he had a flight training school at Daytona Beach United States, and that is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI refers.
But he said he left the U.S. in September last year, became a pilot for airlines in Saudi Arabia and is currently coaching in Morocco. Abdulaziz Al Omari
another suspect on Flight 11, was also cited in the new Arab world.
He claims to be an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and having lost his passport while studying in Denver.
Another man with exactly the same name has surfaced in the Arab News, English version.
The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, said the report.
Meanwhile, the newspaper Asharq Al Awsat, an Arabic daily based in London, claims to have interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.
He was named by the FBI as one of the terrorists of United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Thursday that the identity several terrorist-suicide bombers was in doubt. [...]» G14
Add to this the claim of the father of Mohammed Atta, leader of the terrorists, who said a year after the attacks that her son was still alive. Here is an excerpt from Guardian Unlimited London, September 2, 2002 edition.
"The father of Mohammed Atta, alleged ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, said in an interview published yesterday that his son was still alive.
˝ He hides in a secret location to avoid being murdered by the secret services of the United States ˝, said Mohammed el-Amir Atta, 66, German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. He also firmly denied that her son - known for having struck the first aircraft against the World Trade Center - took part in atrocities, laying the blame instead on American Christians ˝ ˝. [...]» W107
Mohammed Atta's father also pointed the finger at the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, in other publications without however making no evidence.
Now consider this article of June 11, 2003 edition of Insight Magazine, a news magazine published by the conservative Washington Times.
"Almost 48 hours after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the names of the bombers appeared on television screens in view of the world public. Based on information obtained through interviews of witnesses, records and theft of passports through the debris recovered, the FBI claimed to have correctly identified all 18 terrorists. Shortly thereafter, this number was increased to 19. A few days later, the names were followed by pictures of the men blamed for the terrorist act that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Work service information incredibly quickly - some information from the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Virginia - allowed the investigators to link the attacks to Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden.
So he does not doubt that the attacks were the work of Al Qaeda, questions remain as to whether some of the terrorists were indeed men that the FBI had identified. Last year, it probably reached the highest levels of law enforcement after a series of sensational stories published by the BBC, ABC and CNN, and several British newspapers, have questioned the conclusions of the FBI. The reports suggested that at least six men identified by the FBI as terrorists on planes were actually alive. They did not survive the crashes, of course, but rather had never boarded the planes.
The six men claimed to have been victims of identity theft. ˝ ˝ They were outraged to be identified as terrorists, they had told the London Telegraph. In fact, one of the men claimed to have never set foot in the U.S., while another, a Saudi Airlines pilot, said he was on a training flight in Tunisia at the time of the attacks.
These new drugs had led FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some terrorists might have stolen the identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller said on CNN twice that there was no legal way ˝ to prove the identity of suicide bombers ˝. Following this admission, a strange thing happened - nothing. Not track history. No subsequent questions. It was total silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if nobody wanted to know what happened. In fact, the FBI did not concern himself to change the names, occupations or photos of the alleged 19 hijackers. The agency does not even denied news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six terrorists were perhaps unknown. Mueller just left the door open.
Until now. Now, the FBI maintains its original story - regardless of the photographs released suspected terrorists [to the attacks] on 11 September were not or those who never boarded those planes and which are alive and well. The FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply rejects the allegations as false news reports suggesting that the FBI misidentified some of the terrorists of September 11. Carter says they have published the good names and it does not matter whether the identities were stolen. [...]» W24
This position late, always maintained to date by U.S. authorities, is of course highly problematic since the reports and photographs of innocent people live and have still not been retracted and are still used by the FBI and the media. These people, who are recognized on photographs published on television and in newspapers around the world, clearly can not be the real terrorists of September 11.
Clearly, the issue of identity theft raises several others. First, as the uninitiated, what do we know the real terrorists if they are hiding behind false identities? Very little, actually, except that they wished that Arabs are perceived as the culprits.
are to believe the official version, the authors of the September 11 attacks prepared their move with extreme care to achieve their ends, which agrees fairly well with the terrorists of Arab nationality using false identities of other Arab tracks. The primary purpose of using a false identity is to remove suspicions of himself, would it not reasonable to assume that Arab preparing the attacks would rather chose to forge an identity of a nationality other than his?
same time, would it not strange that within a plot as elaborate as those of September 11, only a third of the terrorists involved have found it necessary to use a false identity? Such a directive does not she have to be uniform, ie apply to all participants for terrorists to reach the goal, that of concealing the identity of the real perpetrators? For without such prior consultation, the operation will lose all its raison d'etre.
This topic contains precise ultimately crucial to its cultural and social issues. The use of false identities of Arab citizens by terrorists opens the door to the possibility that the real perpetrators of the September 11 attacks are in fact no related to the Arab cause, as our authorities allege.
In addition, the obstinacy of the FBI to continue using the pictures of innocent people is alive and well at the very least disturbing. It is true that it would be difficult for the U.S. government to continue its wars in the Middle East if it were to emerge that the terrorists were not of Arab origin ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment