Newsbud Exclusive- Agents of Terror on Government Payroll- Part I: Anwar Al-Awlaki.

MSM: “2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + more 2’s = 0”

From quasi investigative reports to legitimate leaks, whistleblowers and numerous court documents, several key 9/11 operatives have been identified and confirmed as assets and or informants of the United States government. All details of these operatives’ positions, functions and employment records have been sealed and protected as beyond and above top secret classified. Further, despite the established facts and undeniable trail of evidentiary crumbs, the mainstream and pseudo-alternative tentacles of the establishment continue to downplay or plainly disregard these cases, and parrot the long ago debunked official narrative. According to them the sum of two plus two plus more twos equals … well, a solid ‘zero.’

Whether it is Anwar al-Awlaki, a man who was born and highly educated in the United States, who fought on our side against our competitors’ interests, who was a regular figure at the Pentagon and the brass’ dinner companion, who was on the FBI’s payroll and highly valued by the US Congress; or Ali Mohamed’s employment with the United States Army’s Green Berets and the CIA, and his connections with the FBI; or the landlord of two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, who happened to be a highly valued long-term FBI informant, we find ourselves staring at black holes of incomplete profiles and missing crucial information. In each of these cases we are dealing with a government engaged in an extraordinary level of secrecy, protection and cover-up. And with every single case we are faced with the crucial why question.

While each case, individually, on its own, paints an extremely troubling picture with serious implications, we must delve into the cases as a whole in order to see the larger theme and an even more telling story. Putting these established cases together, documented in one place, is a sound starting point towards needed answers- the truth; on 9/11.

Anwar Awlaki- An Established FBI Informant & Pentagon Insider

On October 4, 2013, lawyers for Ali Al-Timimi, a Virginia man and Muslim scholar serving a life sentence for supporting jihad against the U.S., pushed to obtain more information from the federal government on evidence pertaining to the cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki’s recruitment as a U.S. government informant over a decade ago. According to Al-Timimi’s defense lawyer Jonathan Turley, recently-released FBI files suggest that Al-Awlaki may have been acting as an “asset” for some government agency. In response to Turley’s request for this crucial evidence, government prosecutors insisted that they had no obligation to provide the detail of its dealings with Al-Awlaki:

“Mr. Turley has no right to know [whether the government] had an asset into Awlaki at that time. Mr. Turley has no right to know if Mr. Awlaki was an asset at that time!”

Leonie Brinkema, the presiding U.S. District Court Judge on the case, has not been inclined to grant motions filed by Al-Timimi seeking more details on the government’s relationship with Al-Awlaki. Further, Brinkema suggested that part of the answer to these concerns is so highly classified that she is the only person at the court who is allowed to see it, and that even a number of other personnel with “Top Secret” clearance were not allowed to see the documents pertaining to these concerns.

Talk about secrecy! You can read Al-Tamimi’s motion seeking evidence about Al-Awlaki here , and the government’s response here.

Even former FBI Director Robert Mueller did not deny the official working relationship between the Bureau and Awlaki:

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch after it filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued the FBI, show the FBI Director was more deeply involved in the post-9/11 handling of al-Awlaki than previously known.

One memo from Mueller to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on Oct. 3, 2002 -- seven days before the cleric re-entered the U.S. and was detained at JFK -- is marked "Secret" and titled "Anwar Aulaqi: IT-UBL/AL-QAEDA."

While the substance of the memo is redacted in full, with the FBI citing classified material, the memo is one of at least three FBI reports, whose primary subject is the cleric, in the nine days leading up to al-Awlaki's sudden return to the U.S. in October 2002.

Another FBI memo, also marked "Secret," on Oct. 22, 2002, 12 days after the cleric's return, includes the subject line "Anwar Nasser Aulaqi" and "Synopsis: Asset reporting." It is not clear whether the term "asset" refers to the cleric or another individual.

"Why would al-Awlaki get the attention of the FBI Director? Why would a warrant for his arrest be pulled when he's trying to reenter the country?" asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

As he leaves the FBI after 12 years -- two years beyond the traditional term - Director Robert Mueller did not dismiss the possibility in an interview with Fox News. "I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset -- that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so," Mueller said.

Awlaki was born in the United States and raised in an affluent family, with a highly educated father who was a Fulbright scholar:

Al-Awlaki was born in the United States. His parents were from Yemen. His father did his graduate work at U.S. universities, receiving his doctorate at the University of Nebraska, and later working at the University of Minnesota (1975 to 1977).

He pursued higher education at prestigious U.S. universities as well:

Al-Awlaki earned his B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University (1994). He also studied at San Diego State University, and worked on a doctorate degree in Human Resource Development at George Washington University Graduate School of Education & Human Development (2001).

Strangely, despite his preacher, aka Imam, positions, al-Awlaki never received any formal Islamic education. In fact, this is what other Islamic preachers have said about him: [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

Processing Distortion with Peter B. Collins: “America’s Illegal Drone Wars”

Peter B. Collins Presents Prof. Richard Falk

International law expert Richard Falk argues that armed drones are more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Sold to Americans as an efficient means of killing without risk to American lives, independent reports show that far more innocent people are killed than militant suspects. Falk offers his views on targeted assassination, and regards the drone killings of Americans like Anwar al-Awlaki as indictable offenses by President Obama. He also comments on the partial release of the Senate torture report.

*Richard Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton, and served as UN Rapporteur for Palestine 2008-2014. His commentary on drones is featured in a new book, Drones and Targeted Killing, edited by law professor Marjorie Cohn. He is also author of the new book, Palestine, the Legitimacy of Hope.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Government: Documents Pertaining to Awlaki Being an Asset on “An Agency” Payroll Are All Classified

The 9/11 Double Agents, Pentagon, CIA & FBI- From Ali Mohamed to Anwar al-Awlaki

Last Friday lawyers for Ali Al-Timimi, a Virginia man serving a life sentence for supporting jihad against the U.S., pushed to obtain more information from the federal government on evidence pertaining to the cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki’s recruitment as a U.S. government informant a decade ago. According to Al-Tamimi’s defense lawyer Jonathan Turley, recently-released FBI files suggest that Al-Awlaki may have been acting as an "asset" for some government agency. In response to Turley’s request for this crucial evidence government prosecutors insisted that they had no obligation to provide the detail of its dealings with Al-Awlaki:

"Mr. Turley has no right to know [whether the government] had an asset into Awlaki at that time. Mr. Turley has no right to know if Mr. Awlaki was an asset at that time!"

Leonie Brinkema, the presiding U.S. District Court Judge on the case, has not been inclined to grant motions filed by Muslim scholar Ali Al-Timimi seeking more details on the government's relationship with Al-Awlaki. Further, last Friday Brinkema suggested that part of the answer to these concerns is so highly classified that she is the only person at the court who is allowed to see it, and that even a number of other personnel with “Top Secret” clearance were not allowed to see the documents pertaining to these concerns. [Read more...]

Notorious “Star Chamber” Courts Protect Government Wrongdoing

U.S. Embraces Tool of Despots


starchamberRecently, Mark Hosenball dropped the bombshell that a secret panel of White House Security Council members meets to draw up a “kill list” of American militants. Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald wrote a scathing critique of the panel, comparing it to a notorious English court known as the “Star Chamber.”

“[A] panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider.  It is difficult to describe the level of warped authoritarianism necessary to cause someone to lend their support to a twisted Star Chamber like that.”

The Star Chamber, an English court dating back to the middle ages, reportedly was named for the stars on the ceiling of the courtroom, located at Westminster Palace.  Over time, it grew increasingly powerful and corrupt.  By the 17th century, under Charles I, it had become a vehicle for prosecuting political dissent.  The court’s procedures made it virtually impossible for defendants to get a fair hearing and served as a rubber stamp for the monarchy.

“Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.”

The Star Chamber also punished religious dissent, ultimately driving the Puritans to seek refuge in North America’s wilderness. Their descendents would form a new nation and endow it with laws that prohibited Star Chamber abuses. Today, “star chamber” is a pejorative term used to describe any administrative body with “strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings” that “cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings.”  Notwithstanding its infamous past, the Star Chamber appeals to government officials who abhor accountability.

The panel that authorized the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki is the most public U.S. example of a star chamber--but it is far from the only one.  The federal government operates a network of star chamber courts administered by government agencies for the purpose of hearing appeals from military and civilian federal employees stripped of their security clearances. Many of those employees are whistleblowers who have disclosed government wrongdoing, thus implicating senior officials.  Senior officials use the star chambers to punish whistleblowers, to discredit their disclosures and to discourage other employees from exposing negligence, waste and corruption.  Existing whistleblower protection laws are helpless to protect federal employees with security clearances from agency reprisal.

Security clearance star chambers violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections by presidential order--Executive Order (E.O.) 12968.  These courts go by a variety of names.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Star Chamber is the “Personnel Security Review Board.” The Department of Defense (DOD) calls its star chamber the “Department of Hearings and Appeals.” Each federal agency interprets the executive order differently, and some—for example, USDA—actually provide less due process than E.O. 12968 allows.  All are offensive to modern notions of justice, but none have been held accountable.  Government officials argue that national security requires the suspension of due process; but, a close examination of the appeals process shows that the government’s claim is a fraud. [Read more...]