|
Banned
|
"The EVIDENCE linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to ..9/11 is clear" OK, Where is IT?
Within hours of the September 11. 2001 attacks, the world was informed by the US government that "Usama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda" were respondible for the attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 on Shanksville, PA. Twleve days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the following in two televised interviews:
Quote:
....DONALDSON: All right. Let me show you something you said the other day, and just see whether you've changed your view on it, concerning proof. You said, "We are assembling the evidence that will tell us, in a way that the world will fully confer with us--concur with us, who is responsible for this."
Are we going to present before the world evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt?
POWELL: Yes, and I think his guilt is going to be very obvious to the world. I mean, he has been indicted previously for terror activity against the United States, and so this is a continuing pattern of terrorism, and we are putting all of the information that we have together, the intelligence information, the information being generated by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
And I think we will put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case that there will be no doubt when that case is presented that it is al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who has been responsible for this terrible tragic (inaudible).
DONALDSON: So you're talking about something beyond simple assertions by U.S. leaders. You're talking about assertions backed up by the evidence.
POWELL: Yes.
DONALDSON: OK....
AND:
..... RUSSERT: Are you absolutely convinced that Osama bin Laden was responsible for this attack?...
....RUSSERT: Will you release publicly a white paper which links him and his organization to this attack to put people at ease?
POWELL: We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack. But also, remember, he has been linked to earlier attacks against U.S. interests, and he's already indicted for earlier attacks against United ...
|
It's nearly seven years later. I would like to read posts with opinions on why we are still waiting for a presentation of "the evidence", as Colin Powell described, above. I think, after after all of this time, waiting for the promised presentation of the evidence that Usama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, it is more than past the time, if you believe these official assertions, to post your best arguments to support the accusations.
<h3>If you doubt the official accusations, I've already laid out support for your argument.</h3> Please frame your responses around your difficulty accepting the assessment of blame by the government without presenting the evidence it so strongly proclaimed that it possesses....
<h3>I believe that, after seven years with no methodical presentation of the evidence to back the accusations, that it is reasonable to be skeptical, and UNREASONABLE to simply accept the official version of who done it. Can anyone name a similar, high profile crime of immense and violent proportion, where "because we say so", would still suffice as an official record?</h3>
The harm, in relations with the rest of the world, in not laying out the evidence, was detailed in the questions to Colin Powell, and to Ari Fleischer, by the press, in that now long ago, time frame. Surely if the official version could be backed with an evidentiary presentation, sooner, rather than later, it would have happened, if for no other reason, than because it was good for foreign relations, especially with middle and far eastern nations.
Quote:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm
Testimony of Dale L. Watson, Executive Assistant Director, Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division, FBI
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
February 6, 2002
"The Terrorist Threat Confronting the United States"
<h3>...The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. .....</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm
Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI
Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, CA
April 19, 2002
....Since none were known terrorists, law enforcement had no reason to question or detain them.
<h3>The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.</h3>
In short, the terrorists had managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and to not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle.....
|
Quote:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/execsummary.pdf
The 9/11 Commission Report
Page 22
....To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money
used for the 9/11 attacks.Al Qaeda had many sources of funding and a pre-
9/11 annual budget estimated at $30 million. If a particular source of funds
had dried up, al Qaeda could easily have found enough money elsewhere to
fund the attack. .....
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
......To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. <b>Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.</b> Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.
|
Quote:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.<A HREF="http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html#_ftn1">[1]</A> (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
http://muckrakerreport.com/id593.html
Judge to rule whether NIST should be enjoined
April 27, 2008 – After filing a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief<A HREF="http://muckrakerreport.com/id593.html#_ftn1">[1]</A>, and responding to the motion to dismiss with a rebuttal, the plaintiff and defendants in Haas v. NIST await the ruling of Federal Judge George B. Daniels, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
Judge Daniels will rule whether NIST should be enjoined<A HREF="http://muckrakerreport.com/id593.html#_ftn2">[2]</A>, granting relief to the plaintiff. The summary of the complaint is that NIST and its subcontractors working on the technical investigation of how World Trade Center Building Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001 failed to call for a criminal investigation when confronted by evidence that under common circumstances, would normally prompt criminal investigation. Absent an independent, public, unfettered criminal investigation, the plaintiff alleges that the integrity of any technical investigation is compromised and should therefore be halted until such time when a criminal investigation is complete.
The seventh anniversary of the collapse of WTC7 is fast approaching. Even so, the government has failed to yet produce a final report describing in conclusive detail, the initiating events and cause of collapse of this particular building.
Judge Daniels is a native of Allendale, South Carolina. President Bill Clinton nominated him to the bench on August 5, 1999. He was confirmed by the Senate on February 24, 2000 and received commission on March 9, 2000.
|
Quote:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200.../020603fa_FACT
Seymour M. Hersh, Annals of National Security, "Missed Messages," The New Yorker, June 3, 2002, p. 40
June 3, 2002 Issue
ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY about intelligence-community harbingers of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. by Al Qaeda... Mentions that the Bush Administration stated it would release information implicating bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization, but never did so... <h3>It is now clear that the White House, for its own reasons, chose to keep secret the extent of the intelligence that was available before and immediately after September 11th..</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ext092301.html
Text: ABC's 'This Week'
Sunday, Sept. 23, 2001
Following is the transcript of ABC's "This Week," hosted by Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts with correspondents George Will and George Stephanopoulos, and guests Secretary of State Colin Powell; King Abdullah II of Jordan; and General Richard Hawley, former commander of the Air Combat Command.
....POWELL: He is under indict--One way or the other. I think the way that we had suggested to the Taliban was that they turn him over to justice, to authorities who could administer justice.
DONALDSON: All right. Let me show you something you said the other day, and just see whether you've changed your view on it, concerning proof. You said, "We are assembling the evidence that will tell us, in a way that the world will fully confer with us--concur with us, who is responsible for this."
Are we going to present before the world evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt?
POWELL: Yes, and I think his guilt is going to be very obvious to the world. I mean, he has been indicted previously for terror activity against the United States, and so this is a continuing pattern of terrorism, and we are putting all of the information that we have together, the intelligence information, the information being generated by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
And I think we will put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case that there will be no doubt when that case is presented that it is al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who has been responsible for this terrible tragic (inaudible).
DONALDSON: So you're talking about something beyond simple assertions by U.S. leaders. You're talking about assertions backed up by the evidence.
POWELL: Yes.
DONALDSON: OK....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ext092301.html
Text: NBC's 'Meet the Press' With Tim Russert
Sunday, Sept. 23, 2001
Following is the transcript of NBC's "Meet the Press," hosted by Tim Russert, with guests Secretary of State Colin Powell, Sens. Thomas Daschle and Trent Lott, and Reps. J. Dennis Hastert and Richard Gephardt.
..... RUSSERT: Are you absolutely convinced that Osama bin Laden was responsible for this attack?
POWELL: I am absolutely convinced that the al Qaeda network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack.
You know, it's sort of al Qaeda--the Arab name is for "the base." It's something like a holding company of terrorist organizations that are located in dozens of countries around the world, sometimes tightly controlled, sometimes loosely controlled. And that the head of that organization is Osama bin Laden.
So what we have to do in the first phase of this campaign is to go after al Qaeda and to go after Osama bin Laden. But it is not just a problem in Afghanistan. It is a problem throughout the world. That's why we are attacking it with a worldwide coalition.
RUSSERT: Will you release publicly a white paper which links him and his organization to this attack to put people at ease?
POWELL: We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack. But also, remember, he has been linked to earlier attacks against U.S. interests, and he's already indicted for earlier attacks against United ...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...p=2&sq=&st=cse
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PROOF; U.S. to Publish Terror Evidence On bin Laden
By JANE PERLEZ AND TIM WEINER
Published: September 24, 2001
The Bush administration plans to make public evidence linking Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda network to the terror attacks on the United States in an effort to persuade the world, and particularly Muslim nations, that a military response is justified.
The evidence will embrace new information gathered by law enforcement and intelligence agents on the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as material used in indictments against Mr. bin Laden in the bombing of American Embassies in East Africa in 1998, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today.
It may also cite leads developed in the investigation of the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen last October.
The administration sees the evidence as crucial to the support of friendly Muslim countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan -- whose governments fear that punishing military action by the United States against the terrorists will spur widespread popular unrest.
In the Saudi port city of Jidda, the foreign ministers of six Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, pledged ''total support and co-operation for international efforts to find the authors of the terrorist acts and bring them to justice.'' But the statement offered no specific military or other assistance. [Page B2.]
King Abdullah of Jordan -- which failed to side with the United States in the gulf war -- sounded less equivocal in his support of whatever Washington might do.
''We realize that the start is always going to be difficult, the first step is always going to be a burden,'' the king said on ABC's ''This Week.'' ''But I believe that the steps undertaken by the American armed forces will have the full support of the international community.''
Two reports are expected within days, officials said: a public one from the State Department, and a secret one prepared by United States intelligence agencies and including details from trusted foreign sources. Officials say they are still arguing over how much information to release -- and to which countries.
The list of nations trusted with all the secret information would be short, and some countries might receive fewer details than others, they said.
The evident intention is to produce evidence before any American military strike. ''If you release it after the action, you're lost,'' one official said, since Muslim governments would have no chance to make the case for the American acts.
The evidence, American officials say, reaches from the southern tip of Manhattan to the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan. It traces a group that started out running material aid to the rebels fighting the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in the 1980's and wound up declaring war on the United States.
The strongest is Mr. bin Laden's declaration of war on Feb. 23, 1998. He proclaimed from his Afghan redoubt: ''To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able.''
The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said today that the government had ''very good evidence of links'' between bin Laden operatives ''and what happened on Sept. 11.'' She added: ''We are drawing in investigative services, law enforcement, intelligence from a lot of countries. And so we need to be careful with how we use this information.''
The public report will omit intercepts by the National Security Agency, including conversations among people on the fringes of Mr. bin Laden's network right after the attacks, officials said.
The secret report will include that type of intelligence information, which will be shared only with some trusted governments....
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010924-13.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 24, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
.....Q Ari, yesterday Secretary Powell was very precise that he was going to put out a report on what we had on bin Laden that could be reported, and not classified. Today, the President shot him down -- and he's been shot down many, many times by the administration -- you seem to be operating -- he also retreated a question of putting out a report. No, I'm wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that there was just a misinterpretation of the exact words the Secretary used on the Sunday shows. And the Secretary talked about that in a period of time -- I think his word was "soon" -- there would be some type of document that could be made available. As you heard the Secretary say today, he said "as we are able," as it unclassifies.
Q -- much more emphatic yesterday, I thought.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think he said the word "soon," as I was reminded today by a very knowledgeable official at the State Department, that's called "State Department soon." And so it's fully consistent with what the President has been saying and the Secretary said. You know, I mean, look, it shouldn't surprise anybody. As soon as --
Q The American people thought "soon" meant "soon." (Laughter.)
Q Is this a sign, Ari, that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, let me -- I was getting there, I was answering Helen. Helen, what I was saying is, it shouldn't surprise anybody that as soon as the attack on our country took place, the immediate reaction is the investigations begin. They begin with the intelligence agencies, they begin with domestic agencies, they begin with a regular law enforcement authorities. And they start to collect a whole series of information.
Some of that information is going to end up in the form of grand jury information, which of course is subject to secrecy laws. Others coming from intelligence services is by definition going to be classified, and will be treated as such.
Over the course of time, will there be changes to that, that can lead to some type of declassified document over whatever period of time? That has historically been the pattern, and I think that's what the Secretary was referring to.
Q That's 50 years from now, if you're talking about a State Department white paper.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I'm not aware of anybody who said, white paper, and the Secretary didn't say anything about a white paper yesterday.
Q Is this a sign, though, that allies, particularly Arab and Muslim allies, really want to see the evidence because they're concerned about any potential action in Afghanistan could lead to instability in the region, so they want to be certain that you have the evidence?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, in the course of the conversations that the President and the Secretary have been having with foreign leaders, their support has been very strong. And they also have information, they also have knowledge. And I remind you, it's not just the United States that collects information and knows that all roads lead to the al Qaeda organization. Other nations have similar means of collecting information.
Q Ari, it does seem that across the board, on proving that these charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations, banks have links to terror; on proving that bin Laden is behind these acts; on what plans the administration has post whatever movement we make in Afghanistan; the answer is always, that's classified, trust us. Does that really serve the democracy well if all this information on which the government is basing its actions is classified?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the American people get it. I think they understand that as the nation moves from a peacetime footing to a wartime footing, the government's need to hold certain pieces of information closer is an important need. And I think the American people are accepting and understanding of that. And I think you all will be the judge if you believe the government has gone too far.
But I don't think there's any indications among the public, certainly, that that is the case. And I think it's perfectly understandable, as people hide in Afghanistan today, who know that if they were to start moving, the United States would take action.
The one thing they want more than anything else is, what information do we have that lets us know who they are and where they are and how quick do we get that information. And we are not going to provide that information.......
.....Q Ari, I just want to make sure I understand the White House position in terms of evidence in general. And I realize you're saying that a lot of governments understand and share information privately. But is there any plan to present public evidence so that the average citizen, not just Americans, but people all over the world can understand the case against bin Laden?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think as Secretary Powell said, there is hope to do that, and to do so in a timely fashion, over some course of time. That's always important in a democracy. In a democracy it's always important to provide the maximum amount of information possible. But I think the American people also understand that there are going to be times when that information cannot immediately be forthcoming. And the American people seem to be accepting of that.
Q But I really am talking even bigger. You're talking about actions in other parts of the world. And certainly you want the support of as many people around the world as possible. I guess it seems as though you're asking everyone to trust you, but without supplying information to show why you should trust -- I mean, to go to a point and then stop.
MR. FLEISCHER: Two points. One, again, many of these nations know what we know. And they are working with us, because they know a lot of the things that we know. There are many conversations that take place between the United States at the state level, at the presidential level, with foreign leaders, that if there were to be a transcript of that conversation, for example, it would be classified, because they discuss secrets. There is a sharing of information. You're presuming that there's no such sharing of information in private. There can be, and there is.
That's not the type of information that can always be publicly shared. And I think the country has an appreciation for that. But you just have to gauge the reaction of nations around the world for themselves. They are working with us, because they believe us. They're working with us because of things they know, and because of the trust they hold in the United States government.....
....Q Let me try one more. Once more, if I could, on the proof issue, I think the picture that we all have in our minds is of Adlai Stevenson at the United Nations, passing around previously classified photographs of missiles with the understanding that America could, within days, if not hours, be the target of those missiles. What's the difference between then and now, in terms of publicizing information that would point the court of public opinion directly toward those who we think are responsible?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, you can't compare what's happened in the past with what's happening today with the instant communication age. Don't forget, anything that is said here in this White House today can be broadcast and be watched by terrorists around the world, as it's said. There is a huge difference in terms of the instant transmission of information and the ability, therefore, of people to take advantage of it for wrongful purposes.
But as I indicated, in the democracy, there still remains an always important goal of sharing as much information as possible with the public. And the President, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, all remain committed to that. And I think you will just be the judges over time about whether that balance is struck. And I submit to you it has been struck, and struck well.
Q The differences is, like, the 24-hour news cycle and the availability of communications?
MR. FLEISCHER: And it's also just the means of how information is collected. And every administration makes a different determination about how to protect that means of collection of information.
But, you know, again I remind you, I understand the frustration that journalists feel in this regard. And we're going to continue to do the best as an administration in providing information. But I also remind you that nations of the world are not passing this message on to the United States; the message has been one of cooperation and trust. And the administration will continue to work hard to keep it that way. And every sign points that it's going that way.
Q I think some of the confusion over this was caused by a couple of reports that there was a white paper and some other reports that there was going to be evidence in a couple of days and that it would be put out before you moved militarily and that sort of thing.
I just want to see if I can be clear in my mind. Are you saying there is some specific effort underway now to provide a -- to work up a nonclassified document that can be shared with the public, here and abroad, and other governments, or is it just a general intention to do so?
And on another track, is there some other effort to come up with a classified document just for use by government officials so that everyone knows you're on the same page?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. On your first question, I cite Secretary Powell's words today. As the Secretary said in the Rose Garden, as we are able and as it unclassifies, which clearly implies it is a classified document that is not unclassified.
Q Say that again. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a classified document that is not unclassified. The Secretary said, as we are able and as it unclassifies -- those are his words and he's right, and that's accurate. So he's indicating then there will be, over time, different issues will be looked at with an eye toward whatever can possibly be publicly shared. But as we speak today, and as the Secretary said, as we are able and as it unclassifies.
Now, of course, right from the beginning, as I indicated in the top of the briefing, as soon as the attack was launched, the investigation began. That investigation, of course, compiles documents, assembles information, and does so in a manner that will reveal how do we know these things, by what sources, by what methods do we know and have received that information. Of course, that's a classified document.
Q The point is, what I'm trying to figure out is, is a group of people somewhere being tasked with coming up with a document that can be scrubbed of classified material so that you can lay out the case? Is that an effort that's now underway? Is that just an intention somewhere down the road?
MR. FLEISCHER: It remains a classified document; a series of classified documents, to be more precise.
Q Ari, do you know if classified documents are being supplied to the grand jury that's looking into this in New York?
MR. FLEISCHER: You need to talk to the Justice Department about anything dealing with grand juries......
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../01/se.29.html
America's New War: President to Make Second Trip to New York Since Attacks
Aired October 1, 2001 - 16:03 ET
....WOODRUFF: You and I were just talking, as we're listening to this reporting just now from Andrea Koppel at the State Department, that why are the -- communications are now going out with U.S. allies telling them now what the links are between Osama bin Laden and what happened on September the 11th. We heard Andrea saying hard evidence, that there's a connection.
Does that mean a lot of progress had been made here, in the investigation since?
HERSH: There's no question we're getting a lot of leads. What I write in "The New Yorker" is that the intelligence communities are pretty much unsure today who these guys were -- whether they were a bunch of guys that came together as a pick-up basketball team, one guy said to me, or whether they were planted here for years and there's many more behind. We really don't know a lot of information about how they operated in America, who everyone is.
There's certainly a lot of evidence some of them are connected to bin Laden, been to the camps. Everyone? I don't think so. I don't think they have -- well, I shouldn't say, because I don't know what they have. A lot of stuff does come from highly-classified stuff, but I can tell you the government is very divided on whether these guys are going to strike against immediately or whether it was a one-time shot. We really don't know that.
WOODRUFF: Last question, Sey Hersh. Will heads roll over this? The president keeps saying he has a lot of confidence in CIA director George Tenet.
HERSH: A lot of people I know say Tenet must go. It's going a matter of time, three, four, five, six months, as soon as we get traction, somebody said. I don't think there's any question that somebody has to pay for this failure, and George Tenet, who is a very nice, personable guy, I think is the first one on the chopping block.
WOODRUFF: All right. Seymour Hersh, writing for "The New Yorker." Thanks very much.
HERSH: Thank you....
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/sus...ly-for-fbi.txt
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT
WHAT WENT WRONG
The C.I.A. and the failure of American intelligence.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2001-10-08
Posted 2001-10-01
After more than two weeks of around-the-clock investigation into the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the American intelligence community remains confused, divided, and unsure about how the terrorists operated, how many there were, and what they might do next. It was that lack of solid information, government officials told me, that was the key factor behind the Bush Administration's decision last week not to issue a promised white paper listing the evidence linking Osama bin Laden's organization to the attacks.
There is consensus within the government on two issues: the terrorist attacks were brilliantly planned and executed, and the intelligence community was in no way prepared to stop them. One bureaucratic victim, the officials said, may be George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, whose resignation is considered a necessity by many in the Administration. "The system is after Tenet," one senior officer told me. "It wants to get rid of him."
The investigators are now split into at least two factions. One, centered in the F.B.I., believes that the terrorists may not have been "a cohesive group," as one involved official put it, before they started training and working together on this operation. "These guys look like a pickup basketball team," he said. "A bunch of guys who got together." The F.B.I. is still trying to sort out the identities and backgrounds of the hijackers. The fact is, the official acknowledged, "we don't know much about them."
These investigators suspect that the suicide teams were simply lucky. "In your wildest dreams, do you think they thought they'd be able to pull off four hijackings?" the official asked. "Just taking out one jet and getting it into the ground would have been a success. These are not supermen." He explained that the most important advantage the hijackers had, aside from the element of surprise, was history: in the past, most hijackings had ended up safely on the ground at a Third World airport, so pilots had been trained to coöperate.
Another view, centered in the Pentagon and the C.I.A., credits the hijackers with years of advance planning and practice, and a deliberate after-the-fact disinformation campaign. "These guys were below everybody's radar—they're professionals," an official said. "There's no more than five or six in a cell. Three men will know the plan; three won't know. They've been 'sleeping' out there for years and years." One military planner told me that many of his colleagues believe that the terrorists "went to ground and pulled phone lines" well before September 11th—that is, concealed traces of their activities. It is widely believed that the terrorists had a support team, and the fact that the F.B.I. has been unable to track down fellow-conspirators who were left behind in the United States is seen as further evidence of careful planning. "Look," one person familiar with the investigation said. "If it were as simple and straightforward as a lucky one-off oddball operation, then the seeds of confusion would not have been sown as they were."
Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase."
In interviews over the past two weeks, a number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved. "To get somebody to fly an airplane—to kill himself," the official added, further suggests that "somebody paid his family a hell of a lot of money."
<h3>"These people are not necessarily all from bin Laden," a Justice Department official told me. "We're still running a lot of stuff out," he said, adding that the F.B.I. has been inundated with leads. On September 23rd, Secretary of State Colin Powell told a television interviewer that "we will put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case" showing that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. But the widely anticipated white paper could not be published, the Justice Department official said, for lack of hard facts. "There was not enough to make a sale."
The Administration justified the delay by telling the press that most of the information was classified and could not yet be released.</h3> Last week, however, a senior C.I.A. official confirmed that the intelligence community had not yet developed a significant amount of solid information about the terrorists' operations, financing, and planning. "One day, we'll know, but at the moment we don't know," the official said.......
|
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1579043.stm
Thursday, 4 October, 2001, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK
The UK's Bin Laden dossier in full
This is the full text of the document, entitled Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, released by Downing Street on Thursday about the evidence against Osama Bin Laden.
This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.
Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources.
But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.
Introduction
1. The clear conclusions reached by the government are:....
|
Quote:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109
Politics : Law
How Osama Cracked FBI's Top 10
Robin Clewley Email 09.27.01 | 2:00 AM
When the terrorists who commandeered the four airplanes in the Sept. 11 attacks were identified, their faces appeared in news publications all over the world.
President Bush has said he has evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, so it would seem obvious that the FBI would include him and other suspects on its 10 most wanted fugitives Web page.
Think again.
Bin Laden is listed, but only for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. There is no mention of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000, both of which he is widely believed to have orchestrated. And forget about Sept. 11.
The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.
"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."
Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who was deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, said in a Sept. 12 interview conducted by Frontline that there is no concrete proof that bin Laden is responsible for the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC attacks, but bin Laden celebrates those attacks and associates himself with people who are responsible for it.
President Bush promises to reveal evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the attacks but denies direct involvement.
Because the list is used to attract the public's attention to a fugitive, careful consideration must take place before a decision is made, Tomb said. The FBI evaluates if publicity will help or hinder the search for a suspect.....
|
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle410125.ece
From The Sunday Times
January 9, 2005
Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
Tony Allen-Mills
THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director.
If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB “Buzzy” Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive.
“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”
Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.
“He’s turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind,” he said. “Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about.”
Krongard, 68, said he viewed Bin Laden “not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist”.
He added: “Let’s say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, ‘Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy’.
“I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communications are just too difficult.”
Several US officials have privately admitted that it may be better to keep Bin Laden pinned down on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than make him a martyr or put him on trial. But Krongard is the most senior figure to acknowledge publicly that his capture might prove counter-productive.
Krongard also acknowledged that the CIA was still having trouble planting spies in Islamic militant ranks. “There are hundreds and hundreds of (Al-Qaeda) cells — it’s like a living, moving bit of protoplasm,” he said.
“In order to penetrate you not only have to be language-proficient, you also have to commit acts that exceed criminality. It’s very hard.”
His comments came as it emerged that new laws to combat the Al-Qaeda threat in Britain and keep the Belmarsh terror suspects in jail will be unveiled next month.
The draft terrorism bill will propose that “acts preparatory to terrorism” become a criminal offence to catch those who provide accommodation, finance, identity papers and other support. The bill will prove controversial because it could be applied restrospectively against many of the 11 foreign terror suspects being detained in Belmarsh, south London, and Broadmoor secure hospital.
Charles Clarke, the home secretary, is also planning to announce a civil punishment for those suspected of “associating” with terrorist suspects, but where there is insufficient proof to press charges.
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/wa...bb9d22&ei=5088
July 4, 2006
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."
The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."
The decision to close the unit was first reported Monday by National Public Radio.
Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.
Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.
"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."
In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military's counterterrorism units, like the Army's Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.
An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information said the closing of the bin Laden unit reflected a greater grasp of the organization. "Our understanding of Al Qaeda has greatly evolved from where it was in the late 1990's," the official said, but added, "There are still people who wake up every day with the job of trying to find bin Laden."
Established in 1996, when Mr. bin Laden's calls for global jihad were a source of increasing concern for officials in Washington, Alec Station operated in a similar fashion to that of other agency stations around the globe.
The two dozen staff members who worked at the station, which was named after Mr. Scheuer's son and was housed in leased offices near agency headquarters in northern Virginia, issued regular cables to the agency about Mr. bin Laden's growing abilities and his desire to strike American targets throughout the world.....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700687_pf.html
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; A13
....But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.
The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.....
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
|
|