Former FBI-CIA Agent Nada Prouty joins us in an exclusive interview to discuss her journey from Lebanon to the United States, her sham marriage to obtain US citizenship, what motivated her to join the FBI counterterrorism unit, and why she left the FBI to join the CIA. She provides us with details of being investigated and eventually prosecuted by the Justice Department, and the reasons she pled guilty to two felonies and a misdemeanor to the sham marriage and unauthorized use of a FBI computer. Ms. Prouty shares with us her assessment of the FBI and the CIA, the differences between the two agencies in approaching counter-terror related operations, her take on the Agency’s scandals, from lying on Iraq WMD to documented cases of assassination-rendition- torture, and more!

Nada Prouty is a former CIA case officer of Lebanese origin who was recruited in 2003 into the CIA from the FBI. In 2005 she was investigated for passing information to Hezbollah because her brother-in-law was suspected of having ties to Hezbollah. U.S. officials said that there was no evidence that Prouty had passed secrets to Hezbollah or to other groups the United States considers terrorist. However, the investigation uncovered that Prouty had committed immigration fraud in 1989 by paying a man to marry her so she could obtain United States citizenship. In 2007 she pled guilty to two felonies related to the sham marriage and to one misdemeanor count of unauthorized use of a FBI computer. Ms. Prouty pled guilty to the computer charge to end the case due to the costs of a legal defense, and was given no jail time in exchange for her plea. Her memoire Uncompromised: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of an Arab American Patriot in the CIA is scheduled to be released this November. For more information on Ms. Prouty and her book you can visit her website.

Here is our guest Nada Prouty unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

In the first two parts of this series we saw how a group of officers at Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, concealed information about al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit from their FBI colleagues in January 2000. In particular they hid information about a US visa in the possession of Flight 77 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar. We also saw how this protection of Almihdhar, his partner Nawaf Alhazmi and al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash continued even after the involvement of Almihdhar and bin Attash in the October 2000 USS Cole bombing became known to the US intelligence community. Concealing information about terrorists involved in seventeen homicides was bad enough, but things were about to get much worse.

Shortly after the CIA had failed to respond truthfully to a second formal request for information about the Cole bombing from FBI agent Ali Soufan in April 2001, the cables the CIA drafted about the Malaysia summit were reviewed at Alec Station. The review was conducted by Tom Wilshire, the station’s deputy chief and one of the key figures in the withholding of the information, and a female CIA officer whose name is not known. The two of them re-read cables from the previous year that said Almihdhar had a US visa and that Alhazmi had flown to Los Angeles with a companion, but neither of them took the appropriate action—watchlisting the Malaysia attendees and alerting the FBI.

After this review, Wilshire ordered another review of the same information. The review was to be carried out by Margaret Gillespie, a CIA detailee to Alec Station whose alleged memory loss regarding the events of January 2000 makes one suspicious of her motives. Wilshire believed, correctly as it turns out, that the cables contained the key to preventing the next major al-Qaeda attack—had they been handled properly, 9/11 would never have happened.

Three weeks before the attacks, Gillespie allegedly discovered a key cable, and this led her to tell the FBI about Almihdhar and Alhazmi. As you know, the FBI hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi was unsuccessful and this, as you probably don’t know, was largely due to Wilshire. Nevertheless, Wilshire received substantial praise from the post-attack investigations for getting Gillespie to do the review. Plenty of his other actions cast suspicion on him, but this review seemed to put him in the clear—if he really was trying to hide the information, why start a review?

If we look at how Wilshire started the review, two things stand out. First, Wilshire told Gillespie that the review was not urgent and that she should do it in her free time. There were obviously other things to do at the time, but figuring out the location of the next major al-Qaeda attack should have been fairly high on the Counterterrorist Center’s to-do list. Second, the reason it allegedly took Gillespie three months to review a handful of relatively short documents is reportedly that she could not find them in the CIA’s database. However, Wilshire had the cables when the review started, but simply failed to give them to Gillespie. Had he done so, the review would have lasted closer to a couple of hours than three months. As we will see, Gillespie says she discovered the key cable that led her to alert the Bureau shortly after the 9/11 hijackers finalised the date of the attack.

After the above facts are taken into consideration, we can come up with a theory about why Wilshire started the second review: after the first review by Wilshire and the unnamed CIA officer, it was obvious that action should be taken; specifically, the FBI and INS should be contacted and told what Alec Station knew, which would have prevented Almihdhar re-entering the US late in the year, or enabled the FBI to follow him when he did. In order to prevent the unknown officer from doing this, Wilshire suggested a second review, which he may have represented as being, for example, more complete, thorough, wide-ranging, etc. Initiating such a review was the only way he could come up with to stop this officer from doing what she knew she should do.

Shortly after this, Wilshire moved to the FBI, where he became deputy chief of the International Terrorism Operations Section. He also initiated a series of events that led to the FBI’s Cole investigators being shown photos of Almihdhar and Alhazmi, although all information about the two men continued to be withheld.

First, Wilshire initiated a discussion with a CIA analyst named Clark Shannon in which a group of three surveillance photos taken at al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit were mentioned. In this discussion, Wilshire committed a slip, suggesting that the photo of Alhazmi that, based on the January 4 meeting with “Omar” discussed in part two of this series, the CIA believed showed bin Attash did not actually show bin Attash at all. “Someone saw something that wasn’t there,” he wrote to Shannon. Given that Wilshire claims he had not even read the cable reporting on the January 4 identification of bin Attash, this is surprising to say the least. Wilshire was, in fact, correct and the photo showed Alhazmi, not bin Attash, but Wilshire appeared to know al-Qaeda operatives better than one of the US’s top sources inside the organization. The explanation for this seems clear: Wilshire knew well who Alhazmi was, and he knew bin Attash too.

After e-mailing with Wilshire, Shannon mentioned the photos to Dina Corsi, an FBI headquarters analyst who worked closely with Wilshire and will go on to play a key role in the story. Wilshire then printed the photos off for Corsi, who was to show them to the Cole agents. Naturally, Wilshire forgot to mention that bin Attash, the mastermind of the attack they were all investigating, had been in Malaysia with Almihdhar in January 2000. Corsi also obtained information from the NSA about the Malaysia meeting.

On June 11, 2001, Shannon, Corsi and Gillespie went to meet with the Cole agents, in particular Steve Bongardt and Russell Fincher, at the FBI’s New York office. After a presentation by the Bureau about the state of the investigation, Shannon told Corsi to take the photos out and show them to her FBI colleagues. Bongardt was immediately curious and asked some basic questions about the photos, such as who was in them and what was going on. The “Wilshire” side of the table mostly refused to answer them. There was an argument, a “shouting match,” which continued between Bongardt and Corsi when the meeting broke up.

It is hard to sustain a good-faith explanation for this meeting, which represents another opportunity to interdict Almihdhar, Alhazmi and the whole 9/11 plot. The claimed reason for showing the photos was that the CIA wanted to know if any of them showed Fahad al-Quso, one of the Cole plotters who was in Yemeni custody and had been interviewed by the FBI. However, one of the photos showed Almihdhar. Wilshire identified him as such when he gave Corsi the photos and she even wrote Almihdhar’s name on the back of the photo. How was the FBI supposed to identify al-Quso in a photo of Khalid Almihdhar? Another photo showed Alhazmi, who looked nothing like al-Quso. Also, Shannon provided conflicting accounts of the meeting afterwards, and his claim that he went to an information-sharing meeting without any information to share is both bizarre and contradicted by Corsi’s notes, which show he did disclose that Almihdhar was travelling on a Saudi passport in January 2000.

Corsi’s refusal to provide the Cole investigators with the NSA information is also incredible. She claimed she could not do so because of an offshoot of the “wall” regulations, which primarily governed the sharing of information between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors. However, the regulations did not apply to one of the New York agents at the meeting, who was a designated intelligence agent. In addition, it would have taken Corsi one day to get permission to pass the information to the other agents, who were on the criminal side, from the NSA’s general counsel.

When the events of the meetings and what preceded it are weighed up, the following conclusion seems inescapable: the meeting was not a good faith attempt to share information, but a ruse—orchestrated by Wilshire—to learn whether the Cole agents recognised Alhazmi and Almihdhar.

When this meeting is compared to the January 4, 2001 meeting with “Omar” referenced in part two of this series, there is a striking similarity: photos of Almihdhar and Alhazmi are passed under the pretext that they show other people, and information just happens not to be shared. Meanwhile, the group around Wilshire learns whether the people recognise Almihdhar and Alhazmi or not.

Another significance of the June 11 meeting is that it shows us that whatever the CIA was doing with Almihdhar and Alhazmi was still very much ongoing. The two men had not been forgotten, they were at the front of the minds of Wilshire and his now-former boss, Richard Blee. As we will see in part 4 of the series, both men were highly aware of the drumbeat of threat reporting in the summer of 2001 and Wilshire even linked Almihdhar to the forthcoming major al-Qaeda attack in a highly incriminating e-mail.

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Zambada Niebla, son of one of the leaders of the Sinaloa “Cartel,” arguably the most powerful international narco-trafficking organization on the planet, argues in his criminal case, now pending in federal court in Chicago, that he and the leadership of Mexico’s Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization, were, in effect, working for the U.S. government for years by providing US agents with intelligence about rival drug organizations.

In exchange for that cooperation, Zambada Niebla contends, the US government granted the leadership of the Sinaloa “Cartel” immunity from prosecution for their criminal activities — including the narco-trafficking charges he now faces in Chicago.

The government, in court pleadings filed last month, denies that claim but at the same time has filed a motion in the case seeking to invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), a measure designed to assure national security information does not become public during court proceedings.

CIPA, enacted 30 years ago, is designed to keep a lid on public disclosure in criminal cases of classified materials, such as details associated with clandestine FBI or CIA operations. In this case, however, the invocation appears to be for the purpose of covering up a scandalous and shady quid pro quo deal between the US government and a drug cartel. Not only that, the Niebla case also threatens to further expose another US government scandal:

It is important to note again that most of the weapons allowed to cross from the US unimpeded into Mexico by ATF’s Fast and Furious were going to the Sinaloa “Cartel,” according to a report issued in July by Issa and Grassley.

So, given Zambada Niebla’s claim ithat “some of the [Fast and Furious] weapons were deliberately allowed by the FBI and other government representatives to end up in the hands of the Sinaloa “Cartel,” it seems his attorneys may want to pose some serious questions to witnesses suspected of having knowledge of that alleged act, including DEA’s Roberts, as well as the special agent in charge of the FBI’s New Mexico operations, Carol K.O. Lee and the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, Kenneth J. Gonzales.

Such a prospect can’t be very uplifting for the prosecution in Zambada Niebla’s case and might explain, in part, why there is an effort afoot by the US law-enforcement and intelligence officials to cloak the revelations, the evidence, that might surface in the case under the seal of national security.

Prosecutors on Monday, Oct. 3, filed a motion in federal court in Chicago rebutting the accused Mexican narco-trafficker’s argument that he has been denied access to critical evidence in preparing his defense:

In their pleadings, prosecutors again affirm the government’s position that there was no immunity deal offered to the accused narco-trafficker or to the leadership of the Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization. The pleadings filed by the prosecution do not address directly why the government is seeking to invoke national-security procedures for Zambada Niebla’s case
…

Monday’s filing by prosecutors confirms that Zambada Niebla’s case does raise national security issues that require, according to those prosecutors, that special procedures be established by the court — under a 30-year-old law known as the Classified Information Procedures Act — to assure that classified materials do not become public during the court proceedings.

There seems to be another equally troubling and scandalous angle to this story: the US media’s synchronized and orchestrated black out of this massive scandal, most likely at the behest of the US government:

To date, the US mainstream media has been completely silent on the US government’s effort to invoke CIPA in the Zambada Niebla case; so, kind readers, Narco News is the only authentic news publication providing you with the scoop.

…

Conroy’s final sentence succinctly sums up the reality in the US government’s so-called War on Drugs:

The future of the for-profit prohibition industry and the drug-war pretense that props it up could well depend on assuring that the public remains in the dark…

I am going to add my own little sentence to Conroy’s: …and the US media has been playing its role exceptionally well in this “assurance” project.

I am going to ask our readers to treat this Boiling Frogs Post update as a Code Red Alert for US Media Cover Up, and take the following actions:

1-    Visit Narcosphere and read my solid journalist friend Bill Conroy’s article here.

2-    If you have a website, FB, twitter or similar accounts, post the notice for Conroy’s article, and ask others to do the same.

3-    E-mail this notice and article links to your friends-groups and ask them to do the same.

4-    Go to ‘comments’ section of mainstream media websites, post comments with the link to this story, and put them to shame-although we know they know no shame.

5-    And finally, thank you all for your vigilance.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Peter B Collins: Our guest today is Paul Thompson, he is the author of the Terror Timeline, he is an alumnus, a graduate of Stanford university, and he has been researching 9/11 and related issues for many years. Paul Thompson, welcome to the Boiling Frogs.

Paul Thomspon: Hey, thanks for having me.

PC: I just wanted to mention as we delve into the complex issues of the events of September 11, 2001, that there were 2 key bits that prompted me to become skeptical or curious, and follow your lead in many respects to question the official story and seek the truth about 9/11. The first was when a friend who was a medical doctor and a private pilot came to me and talked to me about the disconnect between the Federal Aviation Agency and NORAD on 9/11. We may get into those details but, suffice to say, it was a sad comedy of errors and it piqued my interest. But it wasn’t until I saw the timelines that were developed by people like you, and there was some others who did similar work, that really showed the glaring inconsistencies in the official narrative and led to ask questions about the role of some of the individuals in the Bush administration, and the level of honesty, or of lack of it that we have had to encounter, including the way 9/11 Commission was used to “firm up”, the myth that had been launched right after the 9/11 attacks. Now, Paul Thompson, in recent weeks Richard Clarke, who was a key counterterrorism advisor to George W. Bush in the Bush White House, was the subject of an interview that was actually conducted a couple of years ago, but was broadcast on a public television station in Colorado. And it includes some very interesting new allegations from Clarke, essentially that he was kept in the dark on one specific piece of information regarding two of the individuals who were later alleged to have been hijackers on 9/11. Why don’t you recap for our listeners what Clarke said, and why it makes news about these issues.

PT: Well, I recommend people go check out the interview with Clarke for themselves. It’s at secrecykills.com, and it’s about 12 minutes long, so it’s not too much information to take in, and I think the whole thing was very interesting. But in short, he was the ‘counterterrorism czar’ at the time of 9/11 and for a few years before that, and that means he was the highest counterterrorism official in the United States. So he really was the top dog, and all information, all important information, was supposed to come through him, to get to his desk. And, so in this interview he says, ‘you know, there were these two hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar, and it looks now in retrospect, that for a long time, people in the CIA knew a lot about those guys, those two hijackers, and that information did not come across my desk.’ He says he was in contact with Tenet, talking to him on the phone, three, four times a day, any time there was any little bit of information, he would get a phone call from Tenet. He was receiving over 100 CIA reports a day and looking them over. There was a steady flow of information and it’s hard to think before 9/11, what would be a bigger red flag than having 2 known al-Qaeda operatives actually inside the United States? And for all of this time, nobody told him that, he claims. And so he’s quite shocked about this and quite dismayed, and he ends up coming up with a theory to explain why that happened.

PC: And his theory essentially is that the CIA was trying to work with these two Saudis, and convert them to CIA assets. And in order to ‘flip’ them, they kept this very tightly held. The other theory that surfaces for me though, Paul, is that as you mentioned Richard Clarke had served in the Clinton administration and was a holdover into the Bush White House, one of the few.

PT: Mm-hmm.

PC: And my sense is that he was not entrusted with the darkest secrets of the Republican inner circle that arrived determined to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

PT: Well, I think to some extent that’s true, he was certainly kind of demoted, allowed to keep his job but sort of not in the inner circle. He wasn’t meeting with the principals anymore, meaning cabinet-level people like he had been in the Clinton administration. But you have to remember also that George Tenet was a holdover from the Clinton administration and he

PC: Yep.

PT: he was the head of the CIA all the way back to 1997, and this is really a lot about Tenet and the CIA hiding this information. So, you’ve got two Clinton holdovers really, who are at the center of this.

PC: Mm-hmm.

PT: And to some extent he was privy to some of this stuff that the Bush administration was doing. I had heard this interview with Richard Clarke and I was driving down the road, and I practically drove off the road I was so shocked, this was a few years ago, where he mentioned in an interview with NPR radio that around, I think it was around April, May 2001…basically, top Bush people were sitting around a table and discussing ways to have some kind of provocation to go to war with Iraq. And they were kind of brainstorming different ideas on ways to have a casus belli

PC: Mm-hmm.

PT: you know, some sort of excuse for the war. They talked about things like flying an airplane over Iraq and making sure it got shot down by the Iraqi forces, so they could use that as an excuse. So that’s some pretty wild stuff that most of the American public has never heard about and people

PC: That particular idea that was floated by, apparently, George W. Bush was in a conversation with Tony Blair. And it was British, I believe, Sir David Manning, the British Ambassador to Washington who ultimately revealed that.

PT: Mm-hmm.

PC: And it does show that they were looking for a pretext and possibly it wasn’t the first one that they had thought about or activated.

PT: Right.

PC: So Paul, as we heard this interview with Richard Clarke, many other questions come up because he does make a very precise allegation, which is, on September 4th of 2001, there was a principals meeting in the White House, and, he was not told, the principals were not told, that the CIA had informed the FBI about the presence in the united states of Alhazmi and Almidhar. And he says, ‘if they had told us, we would have found those assholes’, and he talks about what they would have done first to launching an investigation into malfeasance by the CIA for not sharing this information and secondly, that he said, ‘we would have put it out on the Associated Press and found those guys.’

PT: Mm-hmm. Well, I’d kind of like to go the whole way back to the beginning and talk about the whole story of these two guys. I think their story has not really been understood or appreciated by the American people as the importance that it really needs to have. But to just kind of mention just a little bit about what you were saying…that very day that that meeting happened, which was September 4th, one week before the 9/11 attacks; There’s a very strange mystery because there was, in the couple weeks right before 9/11 there was some information about these 2 hijackers that was finally given to the FBI after they had, the CIA, had known about these guys for 2 years.
And there was this very inexperienced FBI agent by the name of Robert Fuller, who was given the job of finding these two hijackers. The hijackers, these 2 guys, were not living under cover, using aliases, using all kinds of clever spy tactics…they were living completely openly in the United States. One of them even had his name in the San Diego phone book for crying out loud. They had bank accounts, they had credit cards, they had car registrations, they had traffic tickets…all down the line, everything in their own name. So, at that time, the United States had developed over the years a lot of databases. For instance, you can look up police database that would have anybody’s traffic tickets or arrests in there, and Alhazmi had actually been arrested a couple times for minor things. You can look up credit checks, you can look up the motor vehicle index, they have all these great, sort of private companies collecting incredible amounts of information about people, like Choicepoint was one of these. They had the hijackers’ names and addresses in that. So, he had all of these databases to look at, something like ten different databases, and he supposedly he didn’t find the names of these 2 hijackers in any of the databases which just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Immediately after 9/11, other people did checks and they found these names in pretty much all of these databases. And interestingly enough, we have a mention that says that he asked permission from someone else, from a higher up, to search the credit card database for the names of these 2 people and he was told that was not advisable, ‘not prudent, to do so at this time.’ So, you can see, there’s something very strange going on there, why on earth would they not want to be looking at databases to see if these people are in the United States. What would be the possible excuse to be telling this agent not to do that? So I would like to go all the way back to the beginning and kind of tell the whole story about these 2 hijackers.
PC: Well, go right ahead, we are all ears. So how far back would you like to go?

PT: I want to go all the way back. I think another really great, untold story, in which I have to sort of give the highlights of, is how much the United States intelligence community knew about al Quaeda before 9/11. I just want to mention something that I found, it was from a report, about 6 months after 9/11 that shows just how jaw dropping this was. And this was from a Washington Post article that talked about the capture of Abu Zubayda who supposedly is an al Quaeda big wig and he was arrested early in 2002. And I’ll quote from the article, “‘When agents found Zubaydas laptop computer’, a senior law enforcement source said, ‘They discovered that the vast majority of people he had been communicating with were being monitored under Visa warrants or international spying efforts.’ ‘Finally we got some comfort that surveillance efforts are working’, said a government official familiar with Zubaydas arrest.” So this is quite remarkable because there’s been a lot of controversy about Zubayda; was he really some important al Quaeda guy or not?

Some people think he was mentally ill. But there’s no doubt that he was sort of like a travel agent and he was in communication with a vast number of people. One of the people who said he was kind of crazy and not as important as people say, an FBI agent by the name of Dan Coleman, he said that even though he was crazy, he was constantly on the telephone talking to people all around the world. He was kind of being used, perhaps as someone who is expendable if they got caught, because he did have these mental issues. So, all around the world, all these al Quaeda operatives, we find that the vast majority of them were actually under surveillance at this time, just a short time after 9/11. So, to me, that’s a story that’s never been told, how is that al Quaeda has been able to operate as successfully as they were when they were being monitored so closely?
PC: Well, that’s a lingering question that we are going to have to deal with. So, take us back to Alhazmi and Almidhar first became evident, or, we first became aware of them as we look back forensically.

PT: Right, well, I think we have to go even further back than that. If you go all the way back to the early 1990′s, you have Osama bin Laden living in Sudan rather openly. And we know that way back then, the US intelligence community already started monitoring his satellite phone. In fact, according to one report, even way back then, they developed a technology that they got enough of his vocal recognition, so that if he called on any telephone, they would be able to go through their incredible NSA database and match that phone call with his voice. So he didn’t even have to be using his phone, any voice they’d be able to figure out that was an Osama bin Laden call.

So anyway, so he’s living there and around 2006 (1996?), this other al Quaeda operative, who’s a long time close personal friend of Osama bin Laden, starts this hub in Yemen, and this is going to play a very important role in the story of Alhazmi and Almidhar. And what was happening was that a lot of the countries where al Quaeda was operating like Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia, different countries, the governments there, they were trying to prevent phone calls being made by militants from one country to another. So for instance, Egypt didn’t allow anybody in Egypt to call Afghanistan. They would block all those calls that they could. There was a lot of these blockages, so what a lot of the al Quaeda operatives around the world did was they used this Yemen hub as basically an al Quaeda switchboard.
They would call that hub and say, ‘I’m looking for so-and-so somewhere, and my friend’s over in Europe’, and connect me with that person. So this was just of incredible importance, this hub. Osama bin Laden himself called the hub many, many times. And what happened was the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, they all realized the great importance of this hub. So much so, that they not only monitored phone calls from the hub, but they actually physically planted bugs inside the building, and they even had a satellite in the sky that was dedicated to the hub, that would take satellite photos of anybody coming and going from the building.
This goes way back to the 1990s when they were doing this. What they also did was they had a big map of the world that they put on the wall somewhere, some FBI agents, and every time there would be a call from that hub to somewhere in the world, they would put a pin in the location to where that call was going. And so over time, they were able to map al Quaedas operations all around the world.
So you can start to see why, from this Washington Post article, they were able to say that they had the vast majority of all al Quaeda operatives around the world under surveillance. It was mostly because of this hub.

So now lets get to the Alhazmi-Almidhar part of this. It turns out that the person who owned this building and ran that hub, was actually the father in law of Khalid Almidhar, one of the hijackers. And so, Khalid Almidhar lived in the hub, his wife lived in the hub. Of course he would be off doing various operations, but he would come back from time to time, visit his wife and his extended family which was all pretty much living in that hub. And everyone in that family was pretty much al Quaeda. One report says that practically half of all of the really dangerous operatives in Yemen were all related to this one family. So, this was just like a laser being shone on this hub, on these phone calls and people in the hub, it just couldn’t be any more important. And then, at the end of, well actually all through 1999, Khalid Almidhar was coming and going, NSA was recording phone calls, the fact that he was living there. They got his name, they got the name of his good friend Nawaf Alhazmi, and then it reached a climax at the end of 2009 (1999?) when there was a series of phone calls, basically another high ranking al Quaeda leader named Khalad bin Attash, called up at the hub, called Khalid Almidhar there, and said ‘there’s an important meeting coming up in Malaysia, we want you to attend’. And he said ‘OK’. And there was also a call to Nawaf Alhazmi saying the same thing, ‘Come to the meeting in Malaysia’, and there was a call also to Salem Alhazmi, Nawafs’ brother who’s another 9/11 hijacker. He was also told to come to the meeting. All of these calls are all being recorded by the NSA. And so, they realized with the other US intelligence agencies ‘something really important is happening in Malaysia. Let’s track these guys to the meeting, record the meeting, find out what’s going on there. And that’s exactly what they do. On the way to the meeting Khalid Almidhar stops by in Dubai in the middle east and his passport, his photograph, secretly, might have been by some local people there, might have been some people breaking into this hotel room and photographing it, but for whatever reason they got his passport and it revealed that he had a Visa to come to the United States; and this is huge. Can’t get any more important information than that, because they’ve never really had any solid link of al Quaeda doing something, planning some kind of attack in the United States. This was the first really big break. So, this brings us all the way up to the Malaysia Summit.
PC: And before we go there, Paul, can I just ask you a couple of things about this hub in Yemen? Because Michael Scheuer, who was heading the Alec station, that was the al Quaeda desk, and it was named for his son Alec. He told me, and I believe he also told James Bamford that he tried to get the NSA to share transcripts of these intercepted satellite phone calls that were coming into the hub in Sanaa, in Yemen

PT: Mm-hmm.

PC: and that the NSA refused. And apparently CIA was able to get one portion of the call. Let’s just say that it’s the part originating from Yemen going up to the bird. And he even made a transcript of the one side of the call that CIA was able to intercept, sent it over to NSA and said, ‘well now will you please give us the rest of it?’, and they declined. So some of this in fighting between intelligence agencies on the US side is of interest to me, because it once again suggests, as Richard Clarke has, that the top CIA officials were keeping some information about key al Quaeda operatives very, very tightly held.

PT: Right. Well, I’d say that, sort of the main explanation that people give when they talk about this kind of thing, is they talk about the infighting between these various agencies and, ‘isn’t a shame that there was so much infighting, and that’s really what prevented US intelligence from stopping the 9/11 attacks’, and certainly there was a tremendous amount of infighting that was going on. And what Richard Clarke said is that the infighting excuse is not enough; it wasn’t simply that FBI and CIA couldn’t play ball together and so forth, that there is such an egregious amount of hiding of information about these 2 hijackers that that alone doesn’t explain it. And I think that’s what I’m going to try to argue here, as we go along, is that yes there was this infighting but that alone does not explain what’s going on here. And certainly with the Yemen hub there’s a tremendous amount of hoarding of information. The NSA hardly shared anything that they were getting about this.

So, what’s interesting is that all 3 of those agencies, NSA, CIA, FBI, they realized how important this hub was, and they pretty much independently created their own ways of getting information about the hub so they wouldn’t have to rely on the other agencies. I think the CIA actually went so far as to build their own satellite antenna in the Indian ocean so that they could get the information from this hub. So, we follow that about not sharing of information, but we have to be mindful that in a way that doesn’t really apply to things, because they were gathering their own information independently of each other.
PC: Mm-hmm. And I think I may have misstated his name, it was Scheuer, Michael Scheuer. Ok, so with that said, continue your narrative and let’s go to Malaysia.

PT: I’d also like to point out that Scheuer, he left the CIA bin Laden Unit in the middle of 1999, so he is not really privy to what happens afterwards.

PC: Mm-hmm.

PT: Which is, we’re getting at the very end of ’99. So they’ve tracked these 2 people, Alhazmi and Almidhar, to the Malaysia summit. It’s not really clear if Salem Alhazmi ever attended or not, although he did go on to participate in the 9/11 attacks. Malaysia was a great place to meet because the Malaysian government, wanting to be friendly with middle eastern governments, didn’t even require a Visa from most countries to come to that country, so people could just drift in very easily. And what seems to have happened was it was kind of like an ‘al Quaeda all-star team’ arrived at this summit, and there’s some dispute over exactly who attended, and I think there’s been a deliberate obfuscation all the way until today about just who was at that meeting, but I believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “9/11 mastermind” was at that summit.

For instance, there’s a lot of newspaper reports to that effect, and recently I came across some Wikileaks documents that came out that indicated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lived for a whole week with Alhazmi and Almidhar in Malaysia at that time, which would seem to confirm that he was there. Then you’ve got Hambali, who’s sort of al Quaedas biggest man in Southeast Asia. He worked with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on the Bojinka plot in 1995 which was kind of an early version of the 9/11 attacks which could have killed up to 4,000 people. Very major terrorist; he was known to be a major terrorist by the time of the summit. Then you’ve got Ramzi bin Alshibh; now he’s a very interesting case because he was a member of the Hamburg cell with Mohammed Atta, and some of the other 9/11 pilots who seem to have come to this summit. German intelligence says they have credit cards of him being in Malaysia at the time, there were photographs of him taken at the summit. So that’s a big ‘what if?’. How is it that he goes to the summit and that doesn’t somehow lead to the Hamburg cell in Germany being wrapped up? Because the summit is being very heavily monitored by intelligence agencies. We’ll get back to that. But anyways, so then you’ve got him, you’ve got Alhazmi and Almidhar, the host of the summit is a person named Yazid Sufaat, who’s seemingly head of al Quaedas biological weapons program; it’s being held in his apartment. You’ve got Khalad bin Attash who’s a major operational planner, you’ve got another guy al-Nashiri, major operational planner, about a dozen guys in all. Very, very important, I don’t think there was probably ever a time before 9/11 where there was such a collection of individuals outside of Afghanistan. It was just an unparalleled intelligence opportunity.

So all these guys are gathering at this apartment of Yazid Sufaat, and what the CIA did apparently was instead of monitoring these summit attendees themselves, they had the Malaysian Special Branch, their intelligence agency in Malaysia, do the monitoring. And so the Malaysian Special Branch took photographs, the first day they actually recorded a lot of video footage, but the story is they never got into the apartment where the summit was held. They never had any audio recordings, they were only taking pictures of these people as they wandered around town, they were staying at hotels, they were going to restaurants visiting internet cafes, so on and so on. But they never actually knew what going on in the summit. Now, I don’t know if I believe that, but be that as it may, they’ve got this recording of all this going on, and at the time it was considered so important that people at the cabinet-level in the United States were being updated on a daily basis. The head of the FBI, George Tenet, head of the CIA, the National Security Advisor; it doesn’t seem it actually got all the way up to the level of president Clinton, but certainly very top level people were being told on a daily basis as this summit went on. It was a 4 day meeting. Every day they would be getting updates on what was happening at that summit. And another very important point is that this is at the very time where fear about al Quaeda was hitting a peak, because this summit just happened a few days after January 1 2000, and there was a great fear that there would be millennium attacks, to be timed at the start of the new millennium. There had been an al Quaeda operative captured as he tried to enter the US in Seattle just a couple weeks before. And so there was this great fear that al Quaeda might be planning some attacks to happen very soon in the United States. So you have this incredible worry and focus and you have all these al Quaeda big wigs all meeting right there in Yemen (Malaysia?) So, you would think that after all that, 2 of the 9/11 hijackers attending, the 9/11 mastermind attending…how is it possible that they don’t just wrap up the whole 9/11 plot based on the surveillance of the summit? That’s one of the big mysteries that’s never been explained.
PC: And so, without asking you to form some hardened conclusion, as you recite these things, is it your suspicion that the Bush administration allowed it to happen, or was some way involved in orchestrating it with these characters that they certainly had under surveillance?

PT: Well, you know, I don’t like to speculate along those lines, I don’t even think speculation is necessary, because I think as we go into more details of this Malaysia summit and these hijackers and so forth, you can put forward 3 theories: you can say there was some sort of incompetence; people dropped the ball, that there was an al Quaeda operation going forward and the Bush administration let it happen, or that they actually helped make it happen. But I think the least worst of those would be the incompetence, obviously. When you really look at this, it would have to be such a level of incompetence where you just have this right in your face over and over and over again, that that would have to be criminal incompetence, which should lead to jail terms in my opinion.

So you’re kind of, those different theories, it’s almost a moot point where you’re kind of arguing just how long do these people go to jail, you know? I kind of put it, I like to think of it in terms of a bank robbery.

Where you can think, OK, you can have a person standing there as a security guard, and the bank robber runs down the street runs into the bank; so what is the security guards role? He could be working to help the person rob the bank, it could be part of the team, or, he could be just letting it happen because he wants to see that bank robbed. Or, he could be totally incompetent and do nothing while massive amount of time goes by, and the bank gets robbed. And that’s just as bad as the other two pretty much! I mean, wouldn’t that security guard be locked up for a long time if he just waited an hour knowing that the bank is being robbed and he didn’t do anything about it? Didn’t tell anybody about it? To me, it’s just as bad, really.
PC: Mm-hmm.

PT: So, I see it as kind of– you can’t really know, you can’t really go inside these people’s heads, we don’t have enough data to really know everything, but we know enough that I think if there were to be, to this to actually come to the US courts, that people would go to jail for something. Because there’s no good excuse for why these various attacks were allowed to go forward.

Sibel Edmonds: Well, actually it even gets more confusing and complex than that, and that’s the fact that both the CIA and the State Department, because a lot of these operatives at the CIA, they worked under State Department titles. And a study from 1995, 1996, these same actors were working with, back then they were not called al Quaeda, at least not by the FBIs’ definition or the wiretaps collected at the scene, –foreign targets of the State Department. But, the same actors that we are talking about, our government people within the State Department and the CIA, this is during the Clinton years, were working with these people in Chechnya, in the Balkans, in the central Asian Caucasus. And I’m talking about working together.

PT: Right, well

SE: OK, and so the question that comes up is, they are our partners, they were our partners, in the Balkans, you know, with the conflict in Bosnia, and also in Kosovo. They were our partners with what we did with Chechnya, with Russia. They were our partners with some of the assassinations and the plots they were carrying out in places like Azerbaijan. The same people, bin Laden, Zawahiri, even some of the actors involved in this
PT: Mm-hmm.

SE: And yet, we were also monitoring them as terrorists while we were actually working with them. That’s

PT: Yeah, it’s sort of crazy when you think about it. I mean, I think that if you really start looking at the Machiavellian workings of what the US government and other governments were doing, they kind of saw things in terms of “good terrorists” and “bad terrorists”. Where you have terrorists who for whatever reason, these people are somehow doing our bidding, they are helping us out, they’re helping us achieve our goals, either wittingly or unwittingly.
A good example would be Chechnya, where, for a long time the US had a great quagmire in Viet Nam, and they liked to sort of think of Chechnya as Russia’s’ Viet Nam, and this is a big quagmire for them. They’ve got to be dealing with these Islamist militants and fighting there constantly, year after year, sapping their economy.
SE: Exactly.

PT: They’re a traditional enemy of the United States, so the more Chechnya can sap them, the more the American foreign policy experts and officials are saying, ‘hey this is a really good thing, so why would we want to stop any potential Islamist militant from going to Chechnya and fight there? Hey, instead of stopping them, let’s pretty much give them the plane tickets, have them go there, because that’s helping us out, right?’

SE: Exactly. Right.

PT: And so that’s not just with Chechnya, but that happened in a lot of other places around the world. So, you have this idea where one man’s terrorist is another persons freedom fighter, right? It’s all these labels you throw on these people, these very loaded words, I try not to use words like ‘terrorists’ if I can, because you never know exactly who really these people are, who they’re working for, really what’s going on there? It often turns out there’s double agents and all kinds of intrigue going on, like some sort of exciting spy novel. But anyways, you’ve got these good terrorists, you’ve got these bad terrorists, and it’s clear to me that there were a lot of people before 9/11 who were ‘good terrorists’ in the eyes of the United States because they were doing something that the United States thought was helpful.

In fact there’s a famous quote by Zbigniew Brzezinski, if I can get his name right, who’s the National Security Advisor way back under Carter, and he was asked in 1998 about starting the whole war in Afghanistan way back in the 1970s, because really, it looks now that the CIA kind of goaded the Soviets into attacking by putting some operatives in there, and kind of stirring people up and creating a lot of chaos. So he said, let’s see if I can find his quote here, what he said…I can’t find his exact quote offhand, but it was something to the effect of ‘what’s more important, defeating the Soviet Union or a few stirred up Muslims?’ So the idea is that in a very Machiavellian way, thinking that ‘I’m using these people to get at the Soviets and to achieve our foreign policy goals, so we certainly don’t want to stop these people, we actually want to help them, fund them, train them in some cases…
SE: Exactly.

PT: And we could go way back and look at a long history of US covert support for Islamist militants around the world.

SE: Right! And let’s say just in the 1990s, starting from the mid-1990s to 2000, and we are talking about during the Clinton administration, and we are talking about the 2 guys who are left over from that administration. We are talking about Tenet, and we are talking about Clarke. And Tenet and Clarke were also aware, not only aware, they were involved, both through the diplomatic; working through State Department, but also through these ‘black ops’ and operations in Central Asia and the Balkans. So we have those 2 guys involved in that.

PT: Mm-hmm, yea. These two people particular people, Alhazmi and Almidhar, they have a very long history of working with al Quaeda, and it goes all the way back to the Bosnian conflict in the early 1990s,

SE: Exactly.

PT: it appears that they were involved n that. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also appears to have fought in Bosnia in the early 1990′s, and then it appears that later on that they made attempts at least and probably went to fight in Chechnya as well, these two: Alhazmi and Almidhar.

SE: Mm-hmm.

PT: So it could be that they might have had linkages you know, there’s a whole other story about US support working with al Qaeda

SE: They were not even called al Qaeda, at least not in the FBI. This is one of the things I kept emphasizing during my testimony with the 9/11 Commission. The Arabic unit that worked, and that includes the bombing in Nairobi, because some of the translators, with FBI agents actually went in there, I’m not going to get too deep into the details of those, but they did not even emphasize a title, the name al Qaeda.

PT: Mm-hmm.

SE: So this is the interesting from the FBI side: you mean al Qaeda did not, even though we have this stuff, yea, al Quaeda came up again in 1997, FBI didn’t even have an al Quaeda unit. And these cases, the filings for these cases were not even under ‘al Quaeda.’

PT: Mm-hmm.

SE: The al Quaeda became popular after 9/11.

PT: Right.

SE: Became a brand, it was not even being used as a title for this group, or these groups. And that’s another interesting point, at least for the FBI.

PT: Well, I don’t think the title is so important. Obviously bin Laden, he didn’t really like al Quaeda, he came up with some other long winded names for his group that he wanted to use, and eventually he kind of got, just had to acknowledge that the media was using around the world ‘al Quaeda’ so much,

SE: Exactly, US media made it like (inaudible)

PT: he said, ‘OK, we’re al Quaeda’, but that was pretty much after 9/11. It’s not really so much important what these people are called, is what they were doing and who they’re working with, in my opinion. And you can see these 2 hijackers in particular, have a long history going way back to the 1990s. I don’t want to get too much into the Bosnian conflict, but there’s good evidence the US was working hand in hand with Osama bin Laden and his supporters in Bosnia at that time. So these guys may well have had some sort of contacts with that, going way back. So when Richard Clarke in his interview says, ‘maybe they were trying to turn them’, maybe they thought that they’d already turned them, or maybe they thought that, ‘well these guys, we know them, we know all about them, these are great candidates to turn.’ I don’t know, we can just kind of speculate. (laughs) So anyways, to kind of get back to the thread of what happened at the Malaysia summit and so forth…So what’s really interesting is that, sort of the bombshell out of this, all of the summit stuff, was the fact that Khalid Almidhar had a Visa to come to the United States. And actually, Nawaf Alhazmi did too, but apparently they didn’t know about that right at that point in time. Even as the summit was going on, there were efforts to prevent the FBI from knowing about that.

SE: Before you go further, one question, because I don’t have that information. Do you know where the Visa was obtained, which embassy, where?

PT: I’m pretty sure it was in Jeddah, in Saudi Arabia, if I remember.

SE: OK, thank you.

PT: Which is kind of a whole other story, because that, at least historically had been used in the Afghan war to have the Mujahedeen who were fighting in Afghanistan, to get Visas for them to come to the Unites States to be secretly trained and supported over there. So, it’s, (laughs) the more you dig into this stuff, the more interesting it gets.

SE: Right, because I have a State Department whistleblower, he hasn’t been really that public and vocal, but he worked, he was actually in charge of the Visa office in Jeddah.

PT: Mm-hmm.

SE: Until, I believe 2000-2001, and he also went to the Commission and he spoke a little bit about this stuff. He still hasn’t gotten into the names, but he actually filed complaints about people who actually they knew were confirmed terrorists, candidates, lists. Because many of these CIA operatives worked through the embassy there in Jeddah. Every time they brought it up, they would be overridden by the CIA guys in the embassy of there in Jeddah.

PT: Right.

SE: That was why I was asking.

PT: Right, so anyway you get these hijackers at the summit, then the summit starts to break up, and these people start to be scattered to the four winds. At that time, it would make sense that, normally, the CIA would normally say, ‘OK, FBI, you’re interested in what’s going on in the United States. We have information that one of these people at the summit, Khalid Almidhar, he has a Visa to come to the United States. He’s almost certainly going to use it and probably be involved in some sort of attack there.’ They knew for instance, he was involved in the embassy bombings and some other big attacks already.

That does not happen. In fact, there is somebody who drafts a cable to be sent to the FBI saying just that, that he has this Visa. His superior over rid him and basically said, ‘you can’t send that cable, you’re not allowed to send it.’ He tried later, another week or two later again and told, ‘you’re not allowed to send it.’ That same superior who told him not to send the cable turned around and sent a cable within the CIA telling everybody that the FBI had been told. You can see right there, you really see some duplicity. It goes even further than just the FBI and the CIA not getting along. We have evidence, for instance, of the CIA branch in Thailand, because these guys Alhazmi and Almidhar, they went from the Malaysian meeting, they went to Thailand. The CIA branch in Malaysia kind of asked the Thai branch, ‘what’s going on with these guys? Do you know what happened to them there in Thailand?’ And the Thai branch said, ‘we’ll have to get back to you, we don’t know what’s going on.’ Where at that point we know that the Thai was aware about this US Visa. So even within the United States, within the CIA, one branch is lying to the other branch about what they knew about these 2 particular hijackers. It’s not just a FBI/CIA turf battle kind of thing that’s going on here.

So anyway, so after about a week after the summit, these 2 hijackers, they’re from Thailand, they get on a plane, and they fly to the United States, and they immediately start living in San Diego. And Nawaf Alhazmi at least, he spends the next 2 years, basically he never leaves the United States from that point on. He just lives openly in San Diego, he’s got his number in the phone book and everything. It would be so easy to find him. Khalid Almidhar after a while, he leaves, and he actually –because as I’ve said, his father-in-law was a person who runs that Yemen hub, he actually goes back to the Yemen hub where his wife is, and he lives there for at least a month. Now remember that that hub is so monitored, anybody coming and going their picture is taken, there’s bugs inside the house, there’s so much that has not been revealed. How is it possible for Khalid Almidhar to back to that hub and live there for an entire month? He thinks that he’s with fellow al Quaeda people that he can trust. Would he not be talking about his time in the United States and what he is doing there, and the whole 9/11 plot that he’s a part of, in this very building that is a focus point of US intelligence collection efforts? How is it possible that this 9/11 plot isn’t discovered? And then you’ve got the fact that Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they’re living in San Diego, they’re making calls back and forth to this hub all the time. And they’re making other calls around, but you know, at least those calls are being monitored and recorded by the NSA. Again, how is it possible that some people don’t say, ‘hey, these 2 people are living in the United States, and probably up to no good there.’
PC: And Paul, what was the source of the funding that paid for their housing, paid for their expenses, while they were living in San Diego?

PT: (laughs) Yea, again there are just so many threads to this. I think what happens is that it’s such a complicated story that people kind of lose the thread after a while, because there’s so many tangents and things. But, it turns out that while those 2 hijackers were living in San Diego, there seems to have been a lot of money coming through the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. into sort of the wife of a friend, and it seems to have increased right when the hijackers got there. A lot of people believe that that money was actually helping to pay their living expenses, and there’s a tremendous amount of other information about these hijackers having ties with the Saudis while they were there, and by Saudis I don’t just mean Saudi citizens, I mean Saudi intelligence agents. They went to the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, you know, hooked up with people there, some of whom were very radical, militant minded themselves, who were working at that consulate.

There was one particular guy named Omar al-Bayoumi, who’s a very important figure, because he was living in San Diego, and he really seems to have been some sort of Saudi intelligence agent. He had no visible means of support, yet he had some ghost job with some Saudi government kind of related company, and he was being paid a tremendous amount of money for doing no work. And he had this habit of wandering around the mosques and places where Saudis were living in the United States congregate. You have the video camera and a microphone on the camera, and he’d just be recording people willy nilly, and talking into the microphone making his observations about all the things that he was recording. Everybody in town who was in that Saudi community had basically knew that he was a Saudi government agent, and his job pretty much –you would think that the Saudi government has always been very worried about radical Islamics who come along who want to overthrow the Saudi government.

People like Osama bin Laden, who’s said all kinds of things about how they want to overthrow the Saudi royalty. So, in sort of most towns, they would have somebody like Omar al-Bayoumi, who was keeping an eye to make sure that there weren’t anti-Saudi government insurrections going on amongst Saudi students who were scattered all over the world. So, this guy, and when you go back to the Richard Clarke interview, he puts forth the theory, and he says, ‘well maybe when Alhazmi and Almidhar were living in the United States, maybe the CIA kind of handed off surveillance of these 2 people to the Saudis, and so somebody like Omar al-Bayoumi running around with his video camera would be a likely person to be keeping close eyes on these guys.
He did have all kinds of ties with these 2 people, they even lived at his place for a couple weeks when they first got there. I’ve found that there’s good evidence that Alhazmi knew that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent and he disliked him and tried to stay away from him, and sort of was very wise to what this al-Bayoumi guy was doing. If the CIA was trusting monitoring these 2 incredibly important al Quaeda operatives to some guy who’s just wandering around openly known as a Saudi intelligence agent, walking around with a video camera all the time, I mean that just doesn’t seem to make any sense. Why would you do that? How could you learn any secrets about these people when you’re so openly advertising yourself as a Saudi intelligence agent?
PC: Well, and Paul, it begs the question about the role of Saudi Arabia and the royal family in funding al Quaeda, supporting their efforts. We know that the bulk of the alleged hijackers were Saudi citizens, and yet, the Bush administration gave Saudi Arabia a virtual complete pass

PT: Right.

PC: in any investigation into these events. We went into Afghanistan to distract people from Saudi Arabia.

PT: You know, there’s so many different threads in this story, and one thing that I’ve always been interested in is not only the possible whatever role the United States government and other western governments had in linkages with al Quaeda and so forth, but also, there were a lot of supporters of groups like al Quaeda in the Muslim world. People, even higher ups, billionaires in Saudi Arabia and other countries were very kind of ideological, same thinking as Osama bin Laden, and so they would be supporting these groups with a lot of money and other kinds of support. You see all along that Osama bin Laden would never have been able to keep up, even though he had some money from his inheritance from his big, rich family. It was estimated that al Quaeda cost about 30 million dollars to run every year. Not so much all these operatives running around, but sort of the training camps and there’s a whole sort of network you have to have, before you can even have any operative taking part in everything. You have to be recruiting people and so forth. So you sort of have this big operation that costs 30 million dollars a year, he would have run out of money pretty quickly. He had all these rich Sheiks living in the Middle East who were giving him a lot of money. So the question is, may have some of these Saudi contacts been aware of the 9/11 plot? May have they actually been funding some of the 9/11 hijackers? That’s a very interesting story, but I think it’s kind of a tangential story to the other story we’re talking about today, which is why doesn’t the CIA do something about these guys. What do they know about these guys and why don’t they do something about them?

One of the things about the Saudis is that the CIA knew way back that the Saudi intelligence agency had been very compromised by their support for al Quaeda. There was some people from another intelligence agency, I think the Jordanian intelligence agency one day went into the headquarters of the Saudi intelligence agency and looked around, and they saw on the computers a lot of the people actually had pictures of bin Laden as their screensavers on their computers because they were big supporters of bin Laden.
SE: Now here is another contradiction Paul, because all this time we keep hearing from the both from the media, but also from various supposed speeches by bin Laden, that he was actually a threat to the Saudi establishment, that he was absolutely feared and hated by the Saudis, and basically his number one goal was to basically get rid of the US bases from Saudi Arabia, and also the kingdom. So how do they work together? I mean you’re looking at two now almost contradictory concepts here in terms of the relationship between bin Laden and the Saudis.

PT: Well it’s so complicated, and it’s a very parallel situation in Pakistan, where you see tremendous support from Pakistan, even from the Pakistani intelligence agency to al Quaeda and related groups. And at the same time, these groups are often attacking Pakistani government buildings, and killing lots of people in Pakistan. In Saudi Arabia, it seems even royal members, high ranking members of the royal family are supporting bin Laden and al Quaeda, and Osama bin Laden’s saying, ‘down with the royal family.’ So I think a lot of this kind of ends up being intrigues and politics, where for instance you might have one faction of the Saudi royal family who thinks, ‘I would like to be king one day, and if I can use the fact that there are a huge number of people in Saudi Arabia who are supportive of bin Laden and bin Laden-type extremists, Wahabist religious beliefs, and ally with that whole faction, then that could help me get to power.’
And the same kind of thing happening in Pakistan, where you have various playing off against each other and using these militant groups as a way to get an edge. In fact, in Pakistan there are times where one faction would actually hire people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, his nephew for instance, to kill –there was an attempt where those guys tried to kill Benazir Bhutto back in the 1990s. So they’re very much involved in the intrigues and the politics of these countries which get very complicated, and people working sometimes at cross purposes, or trying to kill each other and so forth.
SE: That makes a lot of sense, especially with what you said with the divided kingdom, as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned. And I think one of the dividers there is the attitude or the stand when it comes to Israel, because where you have the old timers, you have the top layer, that actually behind the scenes, they do have good relationship with Israel. Then you have the segment there within the Saudi kingdom who are absolutely against Zionism and what’s happening in Israel. So that itself is just one other example of how divided they are within their own kingdom.

PT: Right. So to kind of keep trying make sure we stay on the focus of these Alhazmi and Almidhar characters…Richard Clarke, he’s saying that these guys may have been monitored by Saudi Arabia, but to get back to the point that I made a minute ago, that the CIA was so leery of the support that a lot of people in the Saudi intelligence agency had for al Quaeda, that they had put out a notice a couple years prior to all these events saying basically, ‘don’t trust the Saudi intelligence agency about anything having to do with bin Laden.’ So how could they then turn around and say, ‘oh, let’s just leave these 2, the first 2 al Quaeda people we ever really knew who were living in the United States, we’ll just trust the Saudi intelligence agency to keep an eye on them. I mean, that just doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t buy Richard Clarkes’ theory there. So, if you don’t buy that theory, then that leaves a gaping hole. Well, who’s looking after these 2 people when they’re living for 2 years in the United States? Did they just drop the ball so badly that they just said, ‘oh, I wonder whatever happened to those guys.’ (laughs) No one checked on them for 2 years. I don’t buy that.

SE: Neither do I.

PC: Well, at this point, I’m going to pause here and conclude part 1 of our conversation with Paul Thompson, and this’ll make it easier for our listeners to listen to and absorb, and we will continue in part 2, which will be released in short order after part 1, so that you can get all this information and listen to them at your convenience.

Russ Tice joins us to assess and explain the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) ongoing and ever-expanding domestic electronic surveillance of Americans in violation of our rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment, and the implications and dangers of the agency’s massive Data Mining technologies and practices. He provides us with his analysis of the Congressional Intelligence Authorization Act of 2012 and the vetoes issued by the White House against two provisions in the Senate version of the bill, one of which requires that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) be confirmed by the Senate. He discusses the latest development in the case of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who is suspected of leaking classified information to author and New York Times reporter James Risen, and the implications of the renewed request for a subpoena to compel Risen to testify at Sterling’s upcoming trial. Mr. Tice talks about the case of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, the very troubling FBI-NSA information sharing-cooperation, the use of surveillance-generated information as blackmail against elected officials and more!

Russell Tice is a Former NSA Intelligence Analyst & Capabilities Operations Officer Specializing in Offensive Information Warfare (O-IW). During his nearly 20 year career with various US government agencies he conducted intelligence missions related to the Kosovo War, Afghanistan, and the USS Cole Bombing in Yemen. In 2005 Tice helped spark a national controversy over claims that the NSA and the DIA were engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional wiretaps on US citizens, and later admitted that he was one of the sources that were used in the NY Times’ reporting on the wiretap activity in December 2005. On July 26, 2006, he was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury regarding violations of federal law.

Here is our guest Russ Tice unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Click here for the transcript at Corbett Report: TRANSCRIPT

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Author and researcher Kevin Fenton joins us to discuss the recent case involving the CIA’s withholding of the release of audio documentary “Who is Richard Blee?” and the extensive research and findings which have resulted in the unmasking of three former top CIA officials and their role in withholding intelligence on two key 9/11 hijackers and subsequent cover-ups. He details the findings on the two key CIA analysts who were instrumental in this cover up – who were recently identified and exposed as Alfreda Frances Bikowsky and Michael Anne Casey. Mr. Fenton discusses the CIA’s Alec Station, and questions the notion of incompetence versus intentional when it comes to the events leading to and making the terrorist attacks possible on 9/11.

Kevin Fenton is an independent researcher and the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

Here is our guest Kevin Fenton unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Earlier this month, the public was overwhelmed with saturation coverage of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. What is not being reported on with anything near the same zeal, however, is that this September 18th marked another solemn milestone, the 10th anniversary of the start of the anthrax attacks that paralyzed an already fear-stricken nation and actually shut down the US House of Representatives, three Senate buildings, and the Supreme Court.

That the government and the media are largely silent on this anniversary is hardly surprising. Rather than reinforcing the war on terror narrative, the anthrax investigation leads directly back to the heart of the US military-industrial complex, and a secretive biowarfare program that most Americans never knew existed.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

The producers Nowosielski and Duffy have now made both names available [link removed] at their website. They also identify the second CIA culprit as M. A. C. We have not been able to obtain confirmation by other sources on this person yet, but we are still working on it.

Alfreda Frances Bikowsky is the person described in New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side as having flown in to watch the waterboarding of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammad without being assigned to do so. “Its not supposed to be entertainment,” superiors were said to have told her.  She was also at the center of “the el-Masri incident,” in which an innocent German citizen was kidnapped by the CIA in 2003 and held under terrible conditions without charges for five months in a secret Afghan prison. The AP characterized it as “one of the biggest diplomatic embarrassments of the U.S. war on terrorism.”

Both the previous and current administrations appear to have deemed Alfreda Frances Bikowsky’s direct involvement in intentional obstruction of justice, intentional cover up, lying to Congress, and overseeing rendition-kidnapping-torture practices as qualifying factors to have kept promoting her. She now leads the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit and is a close advisor to the President.

*For more background check out the following links:

Boiling Frogs Breaking News: CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

Podcast: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

September 11^th Advocates:

Patty Casazza

Monica Gabrielle

Mindy Kleinberg

Lorie Van Aucken

*For more background check out the following links:

Boiling Frogs Breaking News: CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy 

The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

Podcast: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

This is Part 3 of our three-part one-of-a-kind interview series with author and researcher Paul Thompson. For additional background information please visit the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project at HistoryCommons.Org.

Paul Thompson joins us to discuss one of the most blacked-out and censored aspects of Al-Qaeda-CIA connections: The partnership and alliance between the CIA and Al Qaeda and their joint operations in Central Asia, Balkans and Caucasus throughout the 1990’s. Mr. Thompson talks about Al-Qaeda’s Balkans operations, running training camps, money-laundering, and drug running networks in the region, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and his residence in Bulgaria in order to help manage the Al Qaeda effort in nearby Bosnia, the Al Qaeda cells in Chechnya and Azerbaijan, BCCI and more!

Paul Thompson is the author of the Terror Timeline, a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. His research in the field has garnered over 100 radio and TV interviews. Mr. Thompson holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990. For the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project visit HistoryCommons.Org

Here is our guest Paul Thompson unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

I asked Mr. Nowosielski how the CIA was informed about the schedule and the content of their upcoming segment, and he provided us with the following details:

We emailed CIA Public Affairs on Thursday morning telling them of our intention to name two current agents in our journalism piece and explained the context of their use — the things they were accused of. We also explained that their names had been deduced through open-source materials and that our sources had told us they were working from headquarters.

As for the CIA’s reaction and response Mr. Nowosielski recounted the following:

Their media spokesperson called back almost immediately. After a brief discussion, we emailed him the script for official reply. We also requested an interview with the two to ensure that we were telling the full story accurately. The reply email began “This is off the record:” and then informed us that we may be violating federal law by including those two names. When we asked him to cite the law, we were told it was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This and follow up calls occurred on Thurs, Fri, and Sat, until we explained that we were not recognizing “off the record” in our official interactions with the Agency. We have heard nothing further since.

My own immediate response to the way in which CIA responded to the producers can be summed up in three questions:

1- Is this one of those fairly common cases where the government agency tries its ‘bluffing tactic’ to see whether that suffices to intimidate and stop the whistleblower or reporter in question?

Because the threat is issued by e-mail, and ludicrously, it starts off by stating ‘off the record.’ When confident and on solid ground the agencies come after the targets armed with official- legal letters or even court orders. In my days, in my own case as a government whistleblower, and later as the director of NSWBC dealing with many intelligence agencies whistleblowers and  also reporters, I have experienced the government agency ‘Bluffing Tactic’ more than a few times. For example, the FBI tried to stop my interview with CBS-60 Minutes and later attempted to stop the airing of the segment, but when challenged and invited to go ahead and take legal action, they changed their mind; they went away.

2- Is this an attempt by the CIA to buy needed time to take further action against the producers through the Department of Justice?

One thing I know is that government bureaucracy takes time. It takes time to get ‘things done’ when it comes to the government. In this case, the CIA would have to bring and make the case to the Justice Department. The DOJ then would have  to go through its own bureaucracy and reviews to decide whether it could turn this into a legal action via the courts. Thus, this could possibly be a case of the CIA trying to buy more time to translate its ludicrous ‘off the record’ threat issued by a casual e-mail into a real threat with some teeth. If so, wouldn’t that mean a window of opportunity for the producers to release the information? Or not?

3- What are the real legal liabilities facing the Producers, since the names of the two culprit CIA analysts are already out in public records? Further, with other sources in addition to the public records ‘outing’ the names of the analysts who happen to be involved in possible criminal actions, what level of threat are the producers faced with?

Again, based on my own experience and the experiences of many government intelligence agencies whistleblowers, the CIA would have to first classify the already public information-documents out there revealing the identities of the two CIA analysts; classification after the fact. Next, they would have to legally pursue the other involved sources who have either confirmed or released those names. The CIA hasn’t done that. At least not yet. And what does this mean? Does it mean the producers still have the burden of abiding by the casually issued ‘off the record’ e-mail by the CIA? Or not?

We are still waiting for further analysis by our legal experts and other intelligence sources. Meanwhile I asked our media advisor Kristina Borjesson to give us her take and expert analysis on this case. Internationally acclaimed for her work, Ms. Borjesson has produced for major American and European television networks and published two groundbreaking books on problems of the U.S. press: Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press and Feet to the Fire: the Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak out. Her awards include an Emmy and Murrow Award in TV, the National Press Club’s Arthur Rowse award for Media Criticism, and two Independent Publishers Awards for her books.

Here is the analysis of this case by Ms. Borjesson for Boiling Frogs Post:

The Pitfalls of Due Diligence for Deep Journalism

When independent filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy interviewed Richard Clarke in 2009, the former counterterrorism czar dropped a bomb on camera.  Clarke accused former CIA head George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of withholding critical intelligence from the FBI, DOD, White House and Immigration on the presence in the US of two alleged 9/11 hijackers well before 9/11.  In their film, “Who is Richard Blee?” Nowosielski and Duffy also identify two CIA analysts who participated in the cover-up.

After interviewing Clarke, the filmmakers tried for more than a year to interest media outlets in their bombshell information. “We pitched everywhere and were told no,” says Nowosielski, “We always held out hope to get funding for it to be a real documentary, which we thought [the subject] deserved.” Finally, the filmmakers settled on putting the film out as a podcast.

The CIA is now holding up the release of the recording as a result of the filmmakers doing due diligence as reporters.  It is a standard practice of good journalism to get in touch with subjects that other subjects in a print or TV news piece are talking about if the talked-about subjects are being accused of malfeasance or illegal or unethical behavior.  It is only fair to allow accused subjects to answer and/or defend themselves. It is also then incumbent upon the reporter to get to the bottom of who exactly is telling the truth—the accuser or the accused.

In this case, the filmmakers contacted CIA public affairs to give the two CIA analysts a chance to defend themselves. They followed proper procedure in contacting the CIA public affairs people, because public affairs (not the analysts) are authorized to decide whether to speak on behalf of the analysts or to allow the analysts to speak for themselves.  

Nowosielski and Duffy went one step further in their due diligence.  They sent their entire script to CIA public affairs. “We sent the full piece because we wanted them to know these people were going to be outed. So if they’d been sent in some deep cover thing, we wanted to give them time to pull those people out of those positions.  We thought maybe they would be compelled to defend themselves, because people from the 9/11 commission, the FBI…even Tony Shaffer from Able danger [were] piling on, so we thought maybe we’re misinterpreting this story or they need to defend themselves.”

No doubt the producers did all their digging and proof-gathering into what the CIA analysts allegedly did before calling CIA public affairs. You call public affairs AFTER you have the goods on their employees, not before getting the goods or to get the goods. It’s an ethical protocol, but usually one that is done after it’s too late for public affairs to shut down sources or otherwise interfere in the reporting process.  In this case, contacting CIA public affairs kept the producers on the straight and narrow journalistically, which is a good place to be at all times when reporting on highly sensitive issues.

CIA public affairs responded with an emailed threat. “Off the record,” the CIA’s spokesperson wrote, Nowosielski and Duffy might be violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by outing their analysts. The penalty for outing CIA agents without using classified sources includes fines and/or prison time. The spokesperson’s use of the “off the record” line is a ploy.   When journalists go off the record, it is usually a mutually agreed upon pre-arrangement.  The CIA’s public affairs person’s attempt to silence Nowosielski and Duffy didn’t work but it has given them pause.

The filmmakers are withholding the release of “Who is Richard Blee?” so the threat, even though it has no legal force, has for now had the desired effect. But the story probably won’t end there. Nowosielski and Duffy are currently in assessment mode.  The question they are asking themselves, says Nowosielski, is “Are we in a position that we want to face the heat involved in that? We’re in no rush; we want to make a good decision.”  Meanwhile, they’re getting advice from a number of friendly legal quarters. 

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

In the first part of this series we saw how, in January 2000, the CIA learned that Flight 77 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar had a US visa, but kept this secret from the FBI. At the time, concealing a terrorist or two from the FBI may have been wrong, but it was nothing to get that excited about. However, the withholding of the information took on a new meaning on October 12, 2000, when al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.

Although there is no stone-cold proof of Almihdhar’s involvement in the bombing, there is a small hill of circumstantial evidence linking him to it. For example, he was in Yemen at the time, reportedly with one of the masterminds of the attack, Khallad bin Attash, and the bombers called his phone number in Sana’a, Yemen, although this was an al-Qaeda communications hub and they could have been talking to somebody else there. In addition, one day after al-Qaeda’s previous ship-bombing attempt in Yemen, he had left the country and gone to meet with other people suspected of involvement in the operation. Also, he worked on another al-Qaeda ship-bombing plot, to be carried out in Singapore.

The team that went to Yemen to investigate the bombings was mostly from the FBI, although there were also Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents, and the CIA station in Yemen was supposed to co-operate. The team was led by FBI managers John O’Neill, who died on 9/11, and Ali Soufan, who later became famous due to his opposition to torture by the CIA and US military.

They quickly found evidence linking the bombing to al-Qaeda. This was both through the calls to the communications hub where Almihdhar lived and through evidence linking the attack to bin Attash and another al-Qaeda leader, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Both bin Attash and al-Nashiri were known to the US intelligence community. Indeed, the number of core bin Laden operatives was so small that both had also played a part in the 1998 East African embassy bombings, something already known to US authorities in 2000.

Investigating bin Attash, Soufan picked up hints of an al-Qaeda meeting somewhere in Southeast Asia around January 2000. Thinking this might be significant; in November 2000 he sent a formal request to the CIA asking whether the Agency knew anything about such meeting. The reply that came back was that it knew nothing. This was not true, as the CIA was highly aware of the meeting, having followed the participants around Kuala Lumpur for several days.

It is hard to comprehend how the CIA could simply have forgotten it knew about Malaysia. It is even harder when one learns that Soufan sent not one such request, but three, the latter two coming in the spring and summer of 2001. Each request was more specific than the last. In the end, Soufan even linked the Cole operation to a pay phone used by the militants outside the condominium in Kuala Lumpur where al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit was held and asked the CIA about this pay phone. The Agency had watched the attendees coming out of the building, walking round the block and then making calls from the pay phone, but they were determined not to tell Soufan any of this before 9/11.

Soufan’s requests were first made public in a New York Times piece by James Risen in April 2004, a few months before the 9/11 Commission and Justice Department inspector general, which investigated the FBI’s pre-9/11 performance, reported. Yet, there is not a single mention of these three requests in either of these two reports. Neither is there any mention of them in what remained unredacted of the 2002 Congressional Inquiry report or the executive summary of the CIA inspector general’s report into that agency’s failings. Soufan was interviewed three times by the 9/11 Commission, which also looked at documentation from the Cole bombing enquiry. There was a plan to have Soufan testify publicly at a 9/11 Commission hearing, but it never came to fruition.

Working the bin Attash angle, Soufan received a photo of a person thought to be bin Attash from the Yemeni authorities on November 22. He sent it to the US embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, via the CIA, to check that it was the same Khallad a joint FBI-CIA source inside al-Qaeda who was handled out of Islamabad had previously reported on. On December 16, an FBI agent known as “Michael D.” and a CIA officer known as “Chris” took the photo to the source, who we will call “Omar.” Chris showed the photo to Omar while Michael D., who could not speak any of the source’s languages, was out of the room. When Michael D. came back, Chris showed the photo again, and Omar identified it again as bin Attash in front of Michael D. The news that Omar said the photo showed the Khallad bin Attash he knew was passed along. This might seem less glamorous than assassinating someone with a missile, but it is real police work.

Shortly after this, an unknown CIA official drafted a cable containing some information about bin Attash and some information not about bin Attash. The cable instructed officers to share the information not about bin Attash with the Bureau, but contained no such order regarding the information about bin Attash. Again, this seems to be part of a plan to withhold evidence about certain terrorists from the FBI, although it is unclear whether the center of attention is bin Attash, Almihdhar or someone else.

The CIA alleges that it then somehow convinced itself that Almihdhar may in fact be bin Attash. This despite the fact that it had photos of the two men and they have remarkably different facial features. The idea led the agency to send one of the Malaysia photos showing Almihdhar to Islamabad for Chris and Michael D. to show Omar. However, when the photo arrived in Islamabad it was accompanied by another one; it showed Alhazmi and was also taken in Kuala Lumpur.

Chris and Michel D. went to meet Omar on January 4, 2001. While Michael D. was out of the room, Chris showed Omar the photos of Alhazmi and Almihdhar. Omar did not recognize Almihdhar, but said that the photo of Alhazmi actually showed bin Attash. Although this might sound odd, the two men actually have similar facial features. Unlike on the previous occasion, when Michael D. came back into the room Chris did not have the identification repeated for his benefit. In fact, he never mentioned it to Michael D. at all. He then drafted three cables about the meeting. Two of them, crucially including one disseminated to the wider intelligence community, made no mention of the identification of bin Attash. The one that mentioned his identification was sent only to the CIA.

However, this was very significant information for the Agency, as it now officially believed a senior al-Qaeda operative, one who had just masterminded an operation that cost 17 American lives, had been at the Malaysia summit. The CIA claims it did not know this before—even though it is hard to credit these protestations of ignorance.

Chris sent the information that the photo showed bin Attash and that he had therefore been at the Malaysia summit to the CIA station in Sana’s, Yemen. That station was supposed to be working closely with the FBI on the Cole investigation. The day Sana’a station received the news bin Attash had been at the Malaysia summit, it failed to tell the FBI. It also failed to do so the next day, and the next, and so on, right up until 9/11. The 9/11 Commission knew the information had been sent to the CIA station in Sana’a, but omitted this from its report. It is hard to imagine what good-faith explanation could be advanced for such error.

The same as the station in Sana’a, Alec Station also failed to pass on the information to its FBI colleagues, this despite the fact that in mid-January 2001 Chris asked his Alec Station counterparts to contact FBI headquarters and tell it about recent developments.

Two of the Cole agents, apparently including Soufan, then flew out to Islamabad to have Omar formally identify the first bin Attash photograph for possible use in a criminal proceeding against bin Attash. When they met with Omar, on February 1, 2001, Chris was present. He made no mention of the fact that just four weeks previously Omar had seen bin Attash in a Malaysia meeting photograph. In fact, like all other CIA agents, he made no reference to the Malaysia summit at all.

This is perhaps the most confusing episode of the pre-9/11 intelligence failures, so some explanations are in order. When one views the facts as set out above, something seems to be missing, the whole episode is a series of loose ends and unanswered questions. Why would the CIA think Almihdhar and bin Attash were the same person? Why send the additional photo, showing Alhazmi, to Islamabad? And what happened between the meeting when Omar identified bin Attash in the Yemeni photograph, when everything went swimmingly, and the subsequent one, when Chris had evidently gone over to the dark side?

The explanation that best fits the facts is this: nobody involved in the withholding of the Malaysia information from the FBI realized any danger when Soufan sent the first photo to Islamabad, so Chris did his job the way the taxpayers pay him to do it. However, one of the coterie of officials who was withholding information from the FBI subsequently realized that, as Omar had identified bin Attash and bin Attash was an associate of Almihdhar and Alhazmi, then Omar might also identify these two men as well, if shown photos from the FBI. Therefore, it was necessary to ascertain to what extent this danger was real. The speculation that Almihdhar and bin Attash were the same person was then simply a ruse under which a photo could quickly be transmitted to Islamabad to be shown to Omar. The reason the Alhazmi photo arrived unannounced was that there was concern Omar might identify Alhazmi to the FBI as well. The reason neither Chris nor anyone else mentioned the apparent identification of bin Attash to the Bureau is that, well, this was information the CIA had been working hard to keep from the Bureau for a year, why tell it to them now?

It has become a truism that intelligence operations that go on for a long time get screwed up, often for the strangest reasons, and this is a perfect example of that. Nobody could have anticipated that Omar would look at the photo of Alhazmi and say it was bin Attash, but it had happened. Now Alec Station was forced to withhold crucial information about the USS Cole bombing mastermind and tied itself up in knots about how it had failed to pass this information along after 9/11. The tale of incompetence in withholding the information about Almihdhar, Alhazmi and bin Attash had been stretched well beyond breaking point, but much more, and much worse, was to come in the late spring and summer of 2001. These events will be the subject of part 3 of this series.

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Nowosielski and Duffy are working with legal advisors and we will have more on this soon. Meanwhile you can listen to our recent exclusive interview with the producers and their discovery here at Boiling Frogs Post:

Podcast Show #55: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy 

Also, here are related interviews with Paul Thompson based on the exposé by the two producers: Part 1 & Part 2.

The producers’ website was taken down yesterday. We are in touch with them, and we will keep you informed. Please disseminate this stunning new development, the CIA’s panic, and the content of their interview. Thank You.

Sibel Edmonds

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy join us to discuss their extensive research, interviews and findings which have resulted in the unmasking of three former top CIA officials- George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee- and their role in withholding intelligence on two key 9/11 hijackers and subsequent cover-ups. Duffy and Nowosielski provide us with a detailed account of their new interview with former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and his allegations against the CIA officials- Tenet, Black and Blee – accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence from the White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments. They discuss two key CIA analysts who were instrumental in this cover up, a joint statement issued by the three accused CIA officials in response to Clarke’s allegations, and more!

Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy produced the film “Press for Truth,” which documented the journey of four 9/11 widows as they lobbied the Bush White House to convene an independent commission to probe the attacks. They recently launched a new transparency web site SecrecyKills.com.

Here are our guests Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Although the story of the CIA’s actions in the run-up to 9/11 is complicated, at a fairly early point in any examination of them it becomes clear the agency committed multiple failures, and that these failures enabled the attacks to go forward. The key issue that remains in dispute ten years on is whether these “failures” were deliberate or simply the product of overwork and incompetence. Making an informed judgment means taking the time to look at all the failures, put them in order, and analyze what it all means.

Perhaps the most comprehensible problem is the scope of the CIA’s failings. There was not one error by some lowly neophyte, but a massive string of failures. As Tom Wilshire, one of the key CIA officials involved in the withholding of the information commented to the Congressional Inquiry, “[E]very place that something could have gone wrong in this over a year and a half, it went wrong. All the processes that had been put in place, all the safeguards, everything else, they failed at every possible opportunity. Nothing went right.”

In addition, some of the failures were extremely serious. For example, the alleged failure by Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, to inform CIA Director George Tenet that Flight 77 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar was in the country in August 2001 is simply beyond comprehension. Added to this, the failures were committed by a small group of intelligence officers, centered on Wilshire and his boss Richard Blee, and focused on a few al-Qaeda operatives, in particular Almihdhar and his partner Nawaf Alhazmi. Finally, one of the officers who withheld information has admitted this publicly, and a second reportedly in private, and some surviving documents contradict the “incompetence excuse.”

The story of the CIA’s pre-9/11 failings starts in late December 1999, when the NSA intercepted an al-Qaeda communication, apparently between Almihdhar and bin Laden associate Khallad bin Attash, who is currently in Gitmo. One end of the call was at al-Qaeda’s operations hub in Yemen, which the NSA had been monitoring for some time. The communication showed that a group of al-Qaeda operatives would soon be travelling to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The NSA told the CIA and FBI.

The CIA tracked Almihdhar from Yemen to a stopover in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, where a photocopy of his passport was made. US officials discovered he had a US visa, issued several months earlier and due to expire in April 2000. This information was reported to the various CIA stations involved in the tracking operation and to Alec Station at CIA headquarters on January 5, 2000.

An FBI detailee named Doug Miller read the relevant cables from the field and drafted a message to the FBI to telling them Almihdhar had a US visa. The FBI is a domestically focused organization, so without the US visa Almihdhar was just a foreign terrorist abroad, and not of much concern to it. It was the US visa that would have made Almihdhar significant to the Bureau. A female CIA officer who we will call “Michael” then told Miller not to send the cable yet, saying Wilshire wanted to hold off on it—no one below Wilshire had authority to release such information to the FBI.

A few hours after she blocked Miller’s cable to the FBI, Michael sent out a cable stating that the FBI had been informed of Almihdhar’s visa information. This was not true, and Michael must have known this at the time.

You will not find this episode in the main text of the 9/11 Commission report. Despite its obvious importance, the commission relegated it to a small-type endnote, number 44 to chapter 6.

Miller turned to a fellow FBI detailee, Mark Rossini, who went to Michael to ask what was happening. According to Rossini, Michael said that the FBI was not going to get the information until the CIA wanted it to and that the next al-Qaeda attack was going to be in Southeast Asia.

In addition, according to several CIA officers interviewed by the Agency’s inspector general, it was standard practice to confirm the Bureau had received such information. This was not done.

Around a week later, Miller sent an e-mail to Wilshire asking whether he could send the message to the FBI now. He received no reply.

After 9/11, investigators were unable to find Miller’s draft cable for nearly two and a half years and the people involved allegedly forgot all about it. It was discovered in early 2004, necessitating they relevant officials be interviewed again. However, they still claimed to have no recollection.

Rossini began to talk more freely about what happened to Lawrence Wright for his 2006 book The Looming Tower, which has an unnamed CIA official tell Miller “This is not a matter for the FBI.” However, Rossini then left the Bureau in disgrace and gave a full account of what happened to author James Bamford and journalist Jeff Stein in 2008. According to Rossini, there was nothing wrong with his memory when interviewed by investigators; he simply chose to lie under pressure from the CIA. Rossini also says there was a minder in the room during the interview, a depressingly typical occurrence for the post-9/11 investigations.

On the same day Miller’s cable was blocked, a CIA officer on loan to the FBI who we will call “Robert” briefed two FBI colleagues on what the CIA knew about the Malaysia meeting. Robert told the two FBI agents pretty much everything the CIA knew except the one key thing the Bureau needed to make it sit up and take notice—that Almihdhar had a US visa. Robert then told another CIA officer on loan to the Bureau there was no need to brief the FBI about Malaysia because he had already done so, ensuring this officer would not let slip the Almihdhar visa information.

Meanwhile in Malaysia, the CIA and a local Malaysian intelligence service were following Almihdhar, Alhazmi and their contacts around. Numerous photos were taken, the attendees at the meeting were videoed on the first day, the operatives went out to use computers at an internet cafe, and intelligence officials then examined the computers. However, an attempt to bug the meeting allegedly failed.

The full list of the attendees is not known. However, in addition to Almihdhar and Alhazmi, we do know that two leading radicals, bin Attash and Hambali, a leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah, were present, along with several other lower-level militants. According to counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna and a Pentagon document about Hambali, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohamed was also there. If true, this would make the CIA’s failure to exploit the meeting all the more bizarre—the Agency was actively looking to rendition him to New York for trial at this time due to his involvement in the 1995 Bojinka plot to blow up multiple airliners.

On January 8, Almihdhar, Alhazmi and bin Attash left Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok, Thailand. The CIA claims it lost them at this point, failing to get men to the airport in time to follow them. This claim needs to be taken with a pinch of salt—bin Attash was monitored in Malaysia making a call to the Washington Hotel in Bangkok, where the three men ended up staying, so it would not be too hard to find them there.

Something strange happened at Alec Station on January 12 and 14. Four days after the three men had left Kuala Lumpur, Wilshire’s boss Blee briefed his superiors, presumably including Counterterrorist Center chief Cofer Black and CIA Director George Tenet, about what was happening. He falsely claimed the surveillance in Malaysia was ongoing. Two days later, he gave another false briefing, saying that the meeting had broken up and, again falsely, that the attendees were still being tracked.

This is a puzzle. It is hard to believe that Blee, who managed only a couple of dozen officers, could be so ignorant of the various cables sent and received about the travel to Bangkok. So why did he misinform his superiors? Was he genuinely misleading them? Or had they told him they wanted no paper trail linking them to what was happening?

On January 15, Alec Station dropped the matter entirely, even allegedly failing to write up a full report on the matter. However, in February a foreign intelligence service made an offer to help with Almihdhar, an offer mentioned in the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Report, but not the 9/11 Commission Report. The reply that came stated that no help was needed because the CIA was in the middle of an investigation “to determine what the subject is up to.” This is a key document, as it contradicts the claim Alec Station had forgotten all about the two men at the time.

Also in February, a CIA station (almost certainly the one in Kuala Lumpur) prodded Bangkok station about Almihdhar. What had happened to him? Bangkok was silent for some time, then replied they did not know, and would have difficulty finding out. As Thailand had watchlisted Almihdhar and Alhazmi at the CIA’s request in mid-January, it almost certainly did know, or could get the information with a simple phone call. A couple of weeks later, Bangkok got round to replying in a cable also sent to Alec Station: it said Alhazmi had taken a flight to Los Angeles on January 15 with a companion, who was not named but who was in fact Almihdhar. The non-naming of the companion was totally bizarre, the March 5 cable was drafted in response to a query about Almihdhar and Bangkok must have known his name, so why omit it?

Alec Station did nothing with this cable, which was yet another opportunity to watchlist the two men and inform the FBI. This was not the last time such failures were committed.

How the two main inquiries, by the two Congressional intelligence committees and the 9/11 Commission handled the March 5 cable is instructive. The 9/11 Commission report just glosses over it in a couple of lines. The Congressional Inquiry, however, realized just how important it was and zeroed in. Tenet was asked about this publicly under oath by Senator Carl Levin and Tenet… well, he was less than a hundred per cent truthful. In response to the questioning he claimed, “I know that nobody read that cable,” and then repeated the assertion twice. In actual fact, as the public learned five years later, at least 50 people at the CIA had read the cable. It is hard to believe that Tenet, who must have prepared thoroughly for such an important appearance before Congress, thought what he was saying was accurate. So the simple question is: what was he trying to cover up?

Part two of this series will focus on the bombing of the USS Cole and the CIA’s continuing failure to share information with the FBI.

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

A Few Foreign Nation Clients

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Turkey
Sudan

A Few Clients from the Banking & Fed Megas Pool

Bank of America
Morgan Stanley
Standard Charter Bank

Oil Industry

Exxon Mobile
BP
Chevron Texaco

Military Industrial Complex

Boeing
General Electric

International-Imperialistic- Parasitic Organizations

World Bank
IMF
United Nations

You see, there exists no conflict of interest among these Fein clients. When it comes to imperialistic and exploitative operations, the target puppet nations, the greedy oil and military industrial complex players, and the corrupt-criminal mega banking industry work hand-in-hand. Are you with me so far?

On the other hand, last time I checked Ron Paul challenged the Fed & the corrupt mega bankers. Last time I heard, Ron Paul unequivocally was voicing his disdain for US led international and imperialistic institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Last time I looked, Ron Paul was on the ‘no-no list’ for the Military Industrial Complex lobby.

Now Ron Paul is Bruce Fein’s client. The above predators are also Bruce Fein’s clients. So what are we talking about here?

A Gigantic Conflict of Interest?

Compatible Interests?

If you think it is neither, which one of these clients’ interest comes first? Let me give it a bit of perspective with one example:

The Turkish clients paid Bruce Fein $500,000 in less than two years for him to represent their interests. How much is the Ron Paul campaign willing to pay Bruce Fein in order to surpass Turkey’s  client value to Fein? How much must th Paul campaign pay Bruce Fein for its interests to be put before those of Saudi Arabia, all those mega banks, MIC…?

These questions are yours to answer, and you may want to ask Bruce Fein directly. On September 12, Monday, at 12:30, Bruce Fein will be at Busboys & Poets (2021 14^th Street NW, Washington, DC 20009).  Please let me know what answers you find.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Last month the former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke made headlines in the alternative press when he revealed that the CIA’s failure to pass on information it knew about two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers living in the United States for over a year before the attacks did not merely involve a few lowly CIA analysts who did not understand the importance of the information, but instead extended all the way to former CIA director George Tenet.

The claim that the Director of Central Intelligence knowingly and purposely blocked the White House Counter-Terrorism Czar and high-level FBI officials from learning about known Al Qaeda agents living in the United States is profound in its implications. Given that any interpretation of this assertion would necessarily mean that Tenet and the other CIA officials who blocked this information actually aided the alleged 9/11 attackers and have now participated in a decade-long cover-up of their role, the question necessarily becomes: Why did they do this?

This is our EyeOpener Video Report by James Corbett on 9/11, the CIA & the Art of the Hangout: for boilingfrogspost.com.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

This is Part II of our three-part one-of-a-kind interview series with author and researcher Paul Thompson. For additional background information please visit the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project at HistoryCommons.Org and Richard Clarke’s interview by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski at SecrecyKills.Com.

Paul Thompson joins us to discuss the latest revelations by former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and his explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials – George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee – accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence about two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had entered the United States more than a year before the attacks. He provides us with the most comprehensive history and context to date on Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 with three other terrorists and flew the jetliner directly into the Pentagon killing 189 people. Mr. Thompson takes us through a mind-boggling journey through the Yemen Hub, the highly critical Malaysia Summit, Thailand, USS Cole bombing, CIA’s Alec Station, NSA, FBI and beyond!

Paul Thompson is the author of the Terror Timeline, a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. His research in the field has garnered over 100 radio and TV interviews. Mr. Thompson holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990. For the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project visit HistoryCommons.Org

Here is our guest Paul Thompson unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing directly.

Today is Day 7 on the campaign to raise awareness and alert re Bruce Fein, the greatest threat to the Ron Paul Camp to date. It may be my last one depending on the public response and feedback we receive from the already active and vigilant ‘true’ Paul supporters. I am going to start with one last response to Bruce-Mattie Fein agents who have hijacked several websites to deflect attention from the facts and the real issues. If you go and read the propaganda written by the Feins’ agents you’ll see why I refer to them as ‘agents.’ Either due to certain omega fatty acid deficiencies or natural genetic misfortune, these guys slip and make clear their close associations with both Bruce and Mattie Fein. Now, allow me to provide you with a concrete rebuttal to some of this misinformation that is being spread and planted by Feins’ agents:

“So what if he is representing foreign agents, foreign governments or foreign groups. He is an attorney after all, and it is his job to represent these people?”

Last time I checked attorneys represented their clients in courts. Last time I checked legal cases were not brought by attorneys before the CIA. Last time I checked lawyers did not argue their clients’ cases before State Department operatives. And last time I checked legal representation did not extend to going to Congress, wining and dining representatives, and funneling money into their pockets. Did I miss something when I checked all this last time?! Because this is what Bruce Fein writes and markets about the services he provides for foreign agenda clients, and if you read you hardly, if ever, come across any mention of legal-attorney representation:

“The Lichfield Group features unrivalled government, media, and business experience. Exemplary is the Group’s high level connections with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the one hand, to The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and nationwide broadcast or cable networks on the other.

Whether a client is a giant corporation handcuffed by ill-conceived United States government policies or a foreign government anxious to influence the decisions of Congress, the President, agencies, the judiciary, or State governments, The Lichfield Group is armed with the skills and contacts indispensable for success.”

Just to show my generosity and kindness towards the IQ-challenged Fein agents I am going to recap: Bruce Fein is a foreign agent-lobbyist and that has nothing to do with ‘legal representation.’ He represents foreign agendas before the CIA, the State Department, the Congress, and the White House… Courts ain’t got nothing to do with this in-name-only ‘attorney.’ Where did you guys ever hear of cases being brought before the despicable Central Intelligence Agency-CIA?! What exactly are this Bruce Fein’s ties and close connections to the CIA and State Department he keeps bragging about?!

“Bruce Fein is a fine attorney. Regardless of his shady foreign ties and businesses, as the Chief Legal Advisor to Ron Paul Campaign he is bringing his highly regarded attorney expertise and services!”

As I am writing this piece, as has been the case since the ruling issued by the Congressional Ethics Committee, there is a fine group of legal experts who are working on getting the Bar Association to investigate and hopefully suspend Mr. Fein’s attorney license. This is a gigantic public scandal, not an allegation, people:

“In a statement released on August 5, the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep Jean Schmidt has received multiple improper gifts totaling $500,000 from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) between 2008 and 2010. The Committee ruled that Schmidt must pay the money back, However, she will not face sanctions by the House as she was able to pin the blame for her behavior on her attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman.”

After investigating the case, the Ethics Committee says it was Bruce Fein who intentionally misled his client Rep. Schmidt and funneled half a million dollars of foreign lobby money to the Congresswoman. As I stated before, there are only two possible scenarios here:

His two possible explanations for this case would be: 1- I did not tell my client that my legal representation of her case was part of foreign lobby money funneling to her; 2- My client was fully aware of the foreign lobby bribery nature of my legal representation and services, but to protect her and my foreign bosses I took the blame. Under either explanation one glaring point remains clear, and that is the lack of ethics on behalf of the involved attorney-Bruce Fein.

Feins’ agents are out there trying to persuade the Paul Camp to ‘forget Fein’s foreign lobbyist status and businesses’;  that ‘you’ve got a darn good attorney as your chief legal advisor.’ It is not any of my ‘allegations’ they are countering here; it is the official findings by the House Ethics Committee. How is it going to look for Ron Paul and his supporters if and when it is announced that Bruce Fein is being barred from legal practice due to unethical practices as an attorney?! Who is going to defend Ron Paul for picking this kind of an attorney for this kind of high-official position?! What will the public say? The presidential candidate who picked a crusty foreign lobbyist and a barred attorney as his chief legal advisor?!

I did not have to invent Bruce Fein’s Foreign Lobbyist status. It is in Mr. Fein’s resume and his past and present practices, showcased by him right here. Mr. Fein’s intimate associations with the CIA, the State Department and the White House are not based on any allegations; it is in his resume as written by him. Mr. Fein’s position and membership in the Neocon Nest AEI is a fact that is highlighted and used by him when needed. The ruling on Mr. Fein’s foreign lobby money funneling scheme is not some rumor; it is in an official congressional report.

And finally, it is very hard for me to believe that the propaganda, misinformation and personal attacks on me recently could possibly be coming from any ‘true’ Ron Paul supporter. We are talking about libertarians, and libertarian-leaning people who refuse to stop the critical thinking process and readily summit to any authority. Take a look at the following propaganda example from the Daily Paul website, and tell me if this jibes with the Paul Camp motto:

“I’m all for questioning things, but in the context of a presidential campaign, our leader is Ron Paul. His decision is to keep Fein. Back him up, despite your opinions.”- Road Runner on Wed, 08/31/2011 – 13:40.

Since when do Ron Paul people advocate for a monarchy-kingdom where followers must follow their king/leader blindly without question? This is disgusting. A disgrace to any libertarian minded person! Here is another one:

“An adviser may not be central in the campaign, and could be there to simply “bolster the appearance of the management team”, just like they do with company investment portfolios. It even might be for the purpose of gaining some acceptance from neocons by having the AEI adviser, even though RP is not neocon oriented and might not even take any advice from him. In the end, I have to consider RP to be capable of making these decisions. He is experienced and may have some reasons and knowledge that we do not see.” - Big T Wed, 08/31/2011 – 12:25.

What are these people saying? It is totally okay if Ron Paul hired this guy in order to expand his base to include neocons?!

Okay, I am not going to waste my time with mind-boggling quotes attacking me personally, advocating a dictatorship style following, planting misinformation, and most importantly attributing all that to Ron Paul supporters. Instead, here is my message to all in the ‘true’ Paul Grassroots network:

It is okay to think highly of Bruce Fein’s speeches-writings on State Secrets Privilege and some First Amendment related topics. I’ve read some of those, and I happen to like the content. Fein has been in and around the Paul Camp, giving speeches and interviews since 2008. I had no problem with that. Have the man, pay the man, to write and publish articles. That’s fine. But do NOT let this man inside as a strategically positioned insider. Do not let this man become Ron Paul’s Chief Legal Advisor. A crusty foreign lobbyist, an unethical attorney involved in money-laundering-funneling for foreign agents, a CIA-State Department Insider, a known AEI Neocon, a covert Israel supporter, a man who has been playing all sides-from the ACLU to AEI to Turkey to Pakistan to Israel to Ron Paul…Well, that kind of man has NO place in the Ron Paul campaign as an insider, and has no place with Ron Paul.

I believe I have said and done my part for now. I have been in this particular fight for way too long. Causes to fight for have not decreased but increased. I believed this to be one of those causes worth fighting for, including taking vicious attacks and insults from Paul imposters. However, the decision is now yours to make and the next step is yours to take. In the end, it all boils down to sincerity and principle. Please let me know, and until then.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

The internal discussions over the recent ‘Fein’ selection continue inside the Paul camp. Loyal and vigilant Paul supporters have been doing their part. And a few Fein publicists and friends have been hard at work planting misinformation, propaganda and false accusations on the net right and left. I guess this is a positive indicator – we have Fein and his publicists nervous. When false fronts get nervous they tend to expose themselves even further. And that’s good.

Fein publicists and propaganda planters have been  mainly targeting Ron Paul related sites and forums, and attacking everyone who even dares to question Bruce Fein’s highly questionable businesses and associations. For example: they claim Fein worked for AEI in 1981, and then left. Fein’s bio contradicts this. AEI contradicts this. Even Fein’s business advertisement geared towards his foreign governments contradicts this!

Here is what AEI says about their dear Fein, ‘Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar at AEI,’ and says this as of today, September 2, 2011.

When you look at Bruce Fein’s biographical information listed and promoted by him at his ‘very recently erased’ company website, you see this: “Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute.”

Another interesting development: the Feins have been trying very hard to delete-erase their various companies’ websites and past information. Nervous Bruce and Mattie Fein quickly ran and got rid of their business website for ‘the Lichfield Group’, trying very hard to erase information on their actual businesses. However, as many of you know, nowadays it is very hard to get rid of past online information, and here is what we retrieved on Fein’s relationships and ongoing work as advertised at his company website and brochures seeking additional lobbying positions:

The Lichfield Group features unrivalled government, media, and business experience. Exemplary is the Group’s high level connections with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the one hand, to The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and nationwide broadcast or cable networks on the other.

Whether a client is a giant corporation handcuffed by ill-conceived United States government policies or a foreign government anxious to influence the decisions of Congress, the President, agencies, the judiciary, or State governments, The Lichfield Group is armed with the skills and contacts indispensable for success.

As you can see the Fein couple is not selling good ole boring attorney appeal here. They say they are close to the CIA and State Department and Congress, and willing to influence them for foreign entities if the right dollar amount is paid.

Also, it is very interesting to see how twisting and misrepresenting facts in a not very ethical manner, apparently a ‘Fein’  trademark, shows itself in his representation of his marital status! The Fein publicists, since my article exposing the couple’s ‘Israel Lobby’ agenda,  have begun advertising the Feins as divorced, and concluding that ‘so Mattie Fein’s activities and associations do not in any way apply to Bruce; they are divorced!’ I did check my facts, and I did talk with credible sources: They did file for divorce a few years back, but with all sorts of business partnerships and strategic benefits in politics at stake they changed their mind, and nullified their filings. They are legally married. They are business partners. They have businesses together, and Fein has been his wife’s supporter in every single meaning of the word ‘support.’

I am not going to waste my time, and your time, countering every single bit of false information, accusation and propaganda that is going to be planted by Fein’s publicists. I believe those with a positive agenda who want to see this great threat to the Paul Camp gone are informed and vigilant enough to counter these recent false information planting operations on their own. As you can see, Fein is very nervously busy trying to erase his past; so are his publicists. Instead, I want to remind you that today is Day 4 of our countdown to remove Mr. Fein, the greatest ‘insider’ threat to the Paul campaign to date, and we are counting down.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

This is Part I of our three-part one-of-a-kind interview series with author and researcher Paul Thompson. For additional background information please visit the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project at HistoryCommons.Org and Richard Clarke’s interview by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski at SecrecyKills.Com.

Paul Thompson joins us to discuss the latest revelations by former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and his explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials – George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee – accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence about two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had entered the United States more than a year before the attacks. He provides us with the most comprehensive history and context to date on Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 with three other terrorists and flew the jetliner directly into the Pentagon killing 189 people. Mr. Thompson takes us through a mind-boggling journey through the Yemen Hub, the highly critical Malaysia Summit, Thailand, USS Cole bombing, CIA’s Alec Station, NSA, FBI and beyond!

Paul Thompson is the author of the Terror Timeline, a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. His research in the field has garnered over 100 radio and TV interviews. Mr. Thompson holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990. For the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project visit HistoryCommons.Org

Here is our guest Paul Thompson unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 We are on Day Three and still no conclusive word from the Ron Paul campaign. I have received hundreds of e-mails and comments from objective and vigilant Paul supporters who are equally alarmed and troubled by Mr. Fein’s recently granted inside position. I have also received a few e-mails from Paul supporters who are trying very hard to justify this new troublesome addition. I want to quote from two such e-mails and respond to both:

‘Ron Paul is out in a sea full of sharks. He needs ruthless sharks like Bruce Fein to survive the other sharks. I think it is a good move and I don’t like people like you second guessing it.’

And here is another comment:

‘This was a brilliant and well-calculated strategic move by Paul. In order to expand his base and movement he needs to bring on board people like Fein. Would it be bad if we gain the support of some of those neocons? Would it be bad to have ACLU liberals or Jewish communities stop attacking Paul, and join him instead because of Fein. I think this was a wise choice by Ron Paul. The mainstream media loves Bruce Fein and he knows how to play and please the media…’

Please take a moment and reflect on these comments and this line of thinking. Have we heard this before? I believe we have. For many decades we have justified moves and actions like this by our candidates of choice instead of drawing the lines where they should be drawn. Because where would you draw the line? Why not try to recruit Karl Rove and bring him on board to lead Paul’s campaign press office? Why not hire Bill Kristol to bring in heavy weight neocons? Why not get a manager or two from AIPAC or JINSA to convert the pro Israel lobby Zionist voters? Why not?

Isn’t this the same ‘the end justifies the means’ mentality we’ve been fighting against? Isn’t this what we justifiably accuse the establishment of doing? Isn’t this a solid example of hypocrisy?

I remember the days when Obama supporters were assuring each other of their candidate having to have to make a few pacts with a few devils in order to win, and once he won he was going to boot them all out and make his supporters’ dreams come true. I recall how the Obama apologists were justifying Rahm Emmanuel’s appointment, and after him Gates, and after him Dennis Ross, and after him…until they began to lose count. Oh, I remember, don’t you?

What I am saying is this: One of the greatest strengths and appeal of the Ron Paul movement has been its grassroots quality, straight-forward approach, uncompromising attitude towards the compromised, and most importantly, steering clear of shady-corrupt-infested traps no matter the outer appeal or glitz.

Bruce Fein, the foreign lobbyist for several nations and foreign groups, the AEI nest’s neocon tenant, the reported compromiser of legal ethics …does not belong in the Ron Paul Camp. It’s time for the Paul Camp to draw the line on ‘Fein,’ and keep it there. Don’t let those lines get blurry and eventually disappear altogether. This is ‘Day Three’ in our countdown to remove Mr. Fein, the greatest ‘insider’ threat to the Paul campaign to date, and we are counting down.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

This where John Bolton supported Fein(s) stand on Israel and war propaganda against Iran:

In 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing the couple’s views on Israel and Israel’s interests openly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

Bruce Fein has many homes, including the Neocon Nest AEI. The Ron Paul Camp does not need Mr. Fein as an occupant. It certainly doesn’t.

This is ‘Day Two’ in our countdown to remove this occupant, Mr. Fein, a Ron Paul Camp new occupant and the greatest ‘insider’ threat to his campaign to date, and we are counting down.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 Last week, right after publishing my article on Congresswoman Schmidt and Bruce Fein’s brilliant foreign lobby money rechanneling-laundering scheme, and to my shock, I found out about this:

The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.

“Bruce Fein’s participation adds to our campaign’s already intellectual heft, enabling us to more broadly engage the conversation about constitutionality, civil liberties and the dangers to national security of an increasingly interventionist foreign policy,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

While some at Rep. Paul’s Camp were busy celebrating and cheering the announcement as a brilliant strategic move, I was frantically gathering cases and research notes, corresponding with current and former colleagues from the intelligence community who had come to support Rep. Paul, and communicating with a few friends with Rep. Paul’s Campaign who were equally troubled by this development.

I understand the ‘cheering’ side of Paul’s camp as they have been excited and impressed by the in- writing-and-words-only side of Bruce Fein. Not so different than those who were fired up and sold on the in-words-only rhetoric and promises staged by President Obama. The Constitutional Scholar Fein and the Constitutional Expert Obama. A Great Penman Fein and the Great Orator Obama…and of course the contradicting realities and the contradicting facts.

However, in this case, there are already too many established facts and too much history on Mr. Fein, and way too many rational and realistic people among Paul supporters to ring the alarm bells and counter this great threat before it’s too late. I will go as far as calling the penetration of the Ron Paul camp by Bruce Fein ‘the greatest threat to Paul’s camp to date,’ and will make a solid case for this characterization based on glaring and alarming facts; facts and concerns shared by several loyal Paul advisors today.

Who is the real Bruce Fein? Why there are so many different versions of Fein – one contradicting the other? How do his real actions and intimate associations stand in stark contrast to Ron Paul? What is the most likely plot in planting Mr. Fein within Paul’s campaign?

Foreign Lobby & Influence Peddling

Ron Paul has been consistent and exemplary in his strongly held principles on the Foreign lobby and influence peddling; a rarity in the US Congress. He has displayed intense disdain for foreign lobbying and foreign influence. He even considers congressional ‘junkets’ as another means to be compromised: stressing that he would not travel abroad on agenda-driven foreigners’ dime: “I just think it’s unnecessary for congressmen to travel overseas, and the people in our district were on my side,” he said in an interview. “You don’t need to go to Bosnia to understand we have no business there.”

With Bruce Fein you have exactly the opposite stand. He has been a crusty foreign lobbyist making millions of dollars peddling his foreign bosses’ interests and influence in Congress and government agencies. For Fein it has never mattered who the foreign client or what their agenda. He does not care whether his foreign clients are criminals or terrorists or dictators. As long as they pay him handsomely he’ll sell their agenda and interest no matter what they may be. The words ‘principle’ or ‘taking a stand’ have never entered this foreign lobbyist’s dictionary or comprehension:

One minute, on behalf of one set of his foreign designated ‘terrorist’ bosses, Bruce Fein is busy selling the need for a genocide declaration by the US Congress against one nation:

“For the past year I have written about Bruce Fein in many articles that have been widely published and circulated. He is reportedly paid $100,000 per month to tell lies in Washington about the Government of Sri Lanka… Who are the American individuals backing this group? Where are they getting their money to pay Bruce Fein? Does former US Ambassador Blake have something to do with them…”

The next minute, on behalf of another well-known foreign mob boss, Bruce Fein is busy peddling influence and selling Congress his foreign bosses’ anti-genocide agenda:

“In 2007, Ayasli transferred $30 million in stock to fund a new endeavor, the nonprofit Turkish Coalition of America. The organization is headquartered in a Washington suite that has also been listed as the address for the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, the lobbying firm of Lydia Borland (who has represented the Turkish government), and the law firm of Bruce Fein and Associates (Fein comprises half of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund)…”

“materials put out by the Turkish Coalition of America and authored by a lawyer, Bruce Fein, who now represents Schmidt in the complaint, say that Congresswoman Schmidt has on numerous occasions voiced her opposition to such resolutions and maintains that the historical question is not appropriate for Congress to legislate. The congresswoman, based on her independent research, does not believe the tragic events constitute genocide…”

Bruce Fein sees no problem with representing foreign groups like this:

Fein hit the jackpot in 1991 when he signed on to represent Mozambique’s notorious guerrilla army, RENAMO, which was seeking to overthrow its country’s leftist government. When Fein came on board, RENAMO’s reputation has hit bottom…

…

Even the Reagan and Bush administrations kept their distance from RENAMO, despite their anti-Communist rhetoric…

…

Fein, however, eagerly signed up to flack for Dhlakama’s terror army. Like most foreign lobbyists, he bilked his client for huge sums of money while performing virtually no work.

Mr. Fine, who now fakes and preaches non-interventionism and anti-influence peddling only to echo Ron Paul, in real life has been practicing the exact opposite:

“Now, Fein has returned to lobbying and is working for a client that has the dubious distinction of making RENAMO look good: The Sudan. That country’s government is barred from receiving U.S. foreign aid because of its support for terrorism and because of its revolting human rights record. Amnesty International reports that the Sudanese government not only assassinates and tortures its “enemies,” but that paramilitary forces have kidnapped scores of children, who are believed to be held in domestic slavery by their abductors or taken to camps in remote rural areas, where they are trained for military service”

Here is another on-the-spot description of Real Bruce Fein as a crusty “Beltway Prostitute”:

“Well, well, well. Wasn’t Bruce Fein just recently condemning the Government of Sri Lanka for trying to put an end to the LTTE? But this time he’s defending a sovereign government for protecting itself – rather than slandering it using falsehoods. Now you see what I mean when I earlier referred to Mr. Fein as a “Beltway prostitute.” He will accept money from anyone who can pay the price – regardless of where that money came from, or who his legal and public relations services might unjustly hurt. What an embarrassment to the US legal profession.”

You see, for Mr. Fein pimping the Congress on behalf of foreign clients is about dollars. Nothing more; nothing less. Whether it is advocating additional foreign aid for one country while our nation is being bankrupted, or dragging our Congress to get involved with domestic meddling and the affairs of another foreign country, Bruce Fein has never been about the United States’ interests; just the opposite. Give Fein the dollars and he’ll sign up to lobby for any one: terrorists, corrupt foreign governments, mobsters, assassins …

Long pocketed as a ‘lobbyist’ by Pakistan, Sudan, Turkey, Tamil, and others, Bruce Fein is the exact antithesis to Ron Paul’s principled position on issues related to foreign lobby, corruption and influence peddling in government.

Overt Neocon Ties & Covert Israel Pedigree

Ron Paul has been in staunch opposition and a counter to Neocon agendas and field players. Whether on the Israel lobby and agenda driving the hawkish currents in our nation today, or the corporate war machine interests guiding our foreign policy practices, Paul has consistently stood firm and unrelenting.

Mr. Fein’s public pedigree makes it fairly easy to spot his overt ties and links. For example: he has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). By now I think the majority of Americans know about AEI’s claim to fame:

“AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.[10] Irving Kristol, widely considered a father of neoconservatism, is a senior fellow at AEI, and many prominent neoconservatives—including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—spent the bulk of their careers at AEI.”

A well-known couple of facts about AEI:

1- In order to be accepted by AEI, to become one of their scholars, proven neoconservative inklings and ties are the never-waivered prerequisites.

2- AEI seeks candidates who put Loyalty and Allegiance to Israel above all.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state in their controversial bestseller, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, that the tone of the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two top lobby groups: AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go on to list, as right-leaning think tanks associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute.

Acceptance to the tightly knitted and guarded AEI Neocon community also extends to family members and religious affiliations. Bruce Fein has passed both litmus tests in becoming a highly-regarded member of AEI. His wife, Mattie Fein, has been a vocal hawk, neocon propaganda distributor, and a very familiar face within the Beltway neocon community:

In 2007, Fein penned an opinion piece in the Washington Times calling on the United States to pledge military support to Iranian dissidents in the event of an uprising. Fein, whose father is of Iranian descent, was identified in the piece as the founder and president of the Institute for Persian Studies.

While Fein’s AEI and neocon connections and strong ties are overtly stated, his loyalties and allegiance to Israel and the Israel lobby are not; that is, until you start digging. A former AEI member who now works as a congressional aid stated, ‘Bruce Fein was liked and trusted there as ‘one of them,’ a real Jewish man loyal to Israel and its interests.’

Fein has been successful in playing both sides of this field, and keeping his Israel related activities and ties mainly covert. However, in 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing the couple’s views on Israel and Israel’s interests less covertly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

And here is Bruce Fein’s buddy from AEI, the scandalous John Bolton, who’s been backing the Fein couple including Mattie Fein’s fundraising and campaign:

I was privy to some of the logistics involved in setting up the fundraiser that Bolton held for Mattie’s campaign. It amazed me how quickly some establishment Republicans tried to steal the thunder of Bolton’s appearance through various subterfuges and poaching, and it is a credit to the man’s character and timber that he refused to be a part of it. He was there to endorse Mattie Fein against Jane Harman, and he wouldn’t let third parties screw that up.

Mattie Fein’s established Neocon pedigree, her hawkish propaganda and activities nicely echoes Bolton’s own.  Some liken the relationship to mentor-protégé dynamics that began with the marriage to Fein and entry into the AEI circle.

The Question of Ethics …or Lack of

Even Ron Paul’s foes would admit that he has been a man of principle throughout his life; both inside and outside his congressional career. Those who may disagree with his political platform and stand would acknowledge his adherence to ethical practices, whether in his personal-family life or career.

Bruce Fein’s career on the other hand, in contrast to his writings and well-played public role, has been driven by lucrative foreign lobbying deals, influence peddling in the halls of Congress, the State Department and the CIA, and all that mostly for foreign agendas directly in conflict with those of Americans. Not only that, his regard for ethics as an attorney appears to be nonexistent. In his most recent scandal involving indirect funneling of foreign lobby dollars to Rep. Jean Schmidt, he was determined to have been intentionally misguiding his client on the sources of $500,000 dollars in legal fees:

In a statement released on August 5, the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep Jean Schmidt has received multiple improper gifts totaling $500,000 from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) between 2008 and 2010. The Committee ruled that Schmidt must pay the money back, However, she will not face sanctions by the House as she was able to pin the blame for her behavior on her attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman

You can read the full report by the House Ethics Committee here. It remains to be seen whether anyone will go after Bruce Fein and his license for this highly scandalous case and ethics violations. His two possible explanations for this case would be: 1- I did not tell my client that my legal representation of her case was part of foreign lobby money funneling to her; 2- My client was fully aware of the foreign lobby bribery nature of my legal representation and services, but to protect her and my foreign bosses I took the blame. Under either explanation one glaring point remains clear, and that is the lack of ethics on behalf of the involved attorney-Bruce Fein. On the other hand, Mr. Fein appears to have had practice in riding ethics related scandals and waves. At least in the scandalous ethic violations case  involving Bruce Fein and his partner Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esq.

I started with that famous quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero because it applies to this report and the plots delivered from within. When it comes to Ron Paul’s Campaign no one would ever have to worry about known snakes and neocons like Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle. The enemy sent to you will be one who talks just like you; speaks your words and shouts your slogans. And does so very convincingly.

I have tried to be brief with carefully and well-sourced facts and cases to provide a factual profile for the real Bruce Fein. Considering the facts and who Mr. Fein is, and has been, why would he methodically go about attaching himself to Ron Paul and his campaign? After consulting with several well-respected and trust-worthy sources, the troubling answer was summed up in two possibilities:

1- This is a commonly used ploy by the establishment to penetrate Ron Paul and his camp which has been gaining momentum. This is where the plant carries inside information and strategic plans to the establishment, and simultaneously tries to exert negative influence over decision making and strategy-setting processes.

2- The plant willingly and knowingly becomes the fall-guy bringing down the target candidate. Highly damaging and scandalous information about the plant would be strategically released to the media-public, and the candidate suffers the ultimate consequences.

Personally I am leaning more towards the second possibility and here is why:

I was privy to the extensive rap sheet maintained on Mr. Fein, his foreign mob bosses and their operations at J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Mr. Fein is well aware of this rap sheet and the FBI’s long-maintained operations. I know with certainty that if released by the FBI, whether partially or completely, it would be used as ongoing front-page headlines by the media, to bring down the entire Paul campaign before the primaries.

Ron Paul already has a highly-respected constitutional scholar who is articulate, eloquent, passionate, and most importantly, trust-worthy, clean, and from outside the poisonous capital beltway. That person is Tom Woods. Paul does not need this man Fein. He does not need this glitzy-oily foreign lobbyist who stands in total contrast to Paul’s platform.

I like Ron Paul. I support his stand on foreign policy related matters and his objectives on what need to be changed. I applaud Paul’s stand on our liberties, and I back his quest for a much smaller government. I have done so for years. Please don’t let the establishment succeed in their plot. Bruce Fein is the greatest threat to Paul’s movement to date. He would be a stain – a taint; not one easily removed after the fact. Please begin the countdown, and have Ron Paul remove this man from the campaign as a trusted advisor and insider. Let the countdown begin today; at this hour -at this very minute. Before it is too late.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Recent allegations made by former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke against former CIA Director George Tenet and two other former CIA managers, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, have thrown one of the key unanswered questions of 9/11 into sharp relief. What happened at Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, after an officer there discovered that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, had entered the US?

The officer, Margaret Gillespie, says she made the discovery on August 21 and the record indicates she began to notify the FBI and other government agencies on this day. However, while a substantial amount of information has been made public about how the news circulated around the FBI, almost nothing is known of how Alec Station dealt with it.

In an interview recently broadcast as a trailer for the forthcoming audio documentary “Who Is Rich Blee?” Clarke alleged that the CIA had deliberately withheld from him information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi—in particular the news that Almihdhar had a US visa—for over twenty months before 9/11. Clarke also highlighted the importance of the information, saying it was more important than, for example, any of the key pieces of intelligence discussed at a controversial meeting with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001.

According to a statement recently released by Tenet, Black and Blee, neither Tenet nor any other senior CIA official was told of the visa or of travel to the US by Alhazmi and Almihdhar before 9/11. This was also the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion, although this conclusion was hedged. If this is true, then one appropriate question would be: why not?

After the attacks, it emerged that the FBI had arrested one of the possible hijackers, Zacarias Moussaoui. However, it blew the case, failing to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui’s belongings and even failing to inform its own director of what was happening. This later failure became a badge for the FBI’s general uselessness. And Thomas Pickard, the acting director whom the information did not reach, made matters worse when he suggested Tenet, who had been informed of the case, should have stepped in and done the job Pickard’s staff failed to do.

In his 2007 book At the Center of the Storm Tenet piled on the agony for Pickard (emphasis in original):

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, I was stunned to hear Tom Pickard, who was acting FBI director in August 2001, suggest that I had somehow failed to notify him about Moussaoui. Failed to tell him? Hell, it was the FBI’s case, their arrest. I had no idea that the Bureau wasn’t aware what its own people were doing.

However, the CIA’s failure to inform Tenet of the Almihdhar and Almihdhar information must be regarded as more serious than the FBI’s failure to inform Pickard of Moussaoui. While the local Bureau agents who arrested Moussaoui thought he may well be a terrorist, they did not even realise he was a bin Laden operative, let alone connected to a suspected forthcoming al-Qaeda attack. On the contrary, the CIA knew Almihdhar was linked to the next attack.

In a July 23, 2001 e-mail published following Moussaoui’s trial in 2006, one of Blee’s former deputies, Tom Wilshire, warned CIA Counterterrorism Center (CTC) managers of Almihdhar’s link to the next attack: “When the next big op is carried out by UBL hardcore cadre, Khalad will be at or near the top of the command food chain—and probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid Mihdar should be very high interest anyway, given his connection to the (redacted).”

Khalad (usually spelt Khallad) was a known al-Qaeda leader, currently in Guantanamo. The redaction is probably a reference to al-Qaeda’s global operations hub in Yemen, to which Wilshire knew Almihdhar was linked. The e-mail appears in none of the relevant reports published by the Congressional Inquiry, 9/11 Commission and Justice Department inspector general. It was a follow up to one sent ten days earlier that Blee is known to have read. Wilshire, who was on loan to the FBI at this point, is one of the officials who failed to pass on notification of the Moussaoui case towards Pickard.

The scenario that Tenet, Black and Blee are selling is this: Gillespie found that Almihdhar and Alhazmi had entered the US and notified multiple other agencies. Four weeks previously, Wilshire had informed his former CTC colleagues that Almihdhar was “very high interest.” Yet, nobody at the CTC was able to put this together. Indeed, the significance of the two militants’ presence in the US would usually necessitate prompt notification to Tenet, even without Wilshire’s e-mail. Yet this was not done.

Here, then, is a very simple question: If Tenet did not know that Alhzami and Almihdhar had entered the US after August 21, who failed to tell him?

# # # #

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the numerous “20th hijackers,” was arrested ten years ago next Tuesday, outside the Residence Inn in Eagan, Minnesota. The arrest was one of the first events in a case that gave the FBI a chance to blow open the 9/11 plot, but resulted in abject humiliation for the bureau when its headquarters’ string of errors was exposed in the press.

The Moussaoui case is a poster boy for the state of our knowledge about the attacks: we have some of the details, but know some are missing. Also, two key questions remain unanswered. This despite the wealth of information that came out at the trial and the fact that Moussaoui, although largely ignored by the 9/11 Commission’s final report—partly due to the forthcoming trial—was a major topic of the Justice Department inspector general’s report into the FBI’s pre-attack failings.

These are the bare bones of the case: Moussaoui had been a known extremist for years prior to his arrest. Before the bureau first heard his name on August 15, he had been under surveillance by French and British intelligence and the CIA, although the agency would claim it only knew him under an alias. He was sent to the US for flight training by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, possibly to participate in 9/11, possibly to participate in a follow-up operation. However, he was a poor student and dropped out of basic flight school before obtaining a licence and went to learn about flying a Boeing 747, which aroused suspicion.

When the FBI was brought in, the Minneapolis agents realized he was dangerous and arrested him on an immigration violation—despite being told not to do so by headquarters. This was the first of many times the Minneapolis field office and FBI headquarters clashed over the case. Essentially, even though they did not know he was linked to al-Qaeda, the local agents understood the risk Moussaoui posed—one even speculated he would fly a large airliner into the World Trade Center—and they wanted a warrant to search his belongings to get information that would lead to his accomplices. On the other hand, headquarters seemed to think they were alarmist and there was nothing to the case. They kept throwing up roadblocks.

Although it is uncertain whether Moussaoui would have participated in the 9/11 attacks if he had remained free, or whether he ever met any of the nineteen hijackers, he certainly had very visible links to some of their key associates, such as Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Yazid Sufaat. These links would have led to eleven of the nineteen. Some of the connections between what Moussaoui had in his possession and the hijackers would have been easy to make. For example, the CIA knew that Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi had stayed at Sufaat’s apartment during al-Qaeda’s January 2000 summit in Kuala Lumpur.

There were four key figures who dealt with the case at FBI headquarters: Rita Flack, an intelligence operations specialist at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU); Michael Maltbie, a supervisory special agent with the RFU; their unit chief Dave Frasca; and Tom Wilshire, a CIA officer on loan to FBI headquarters. Wilshire was either a consultant to Michael Rolince, head of the FBI’s International Terrorism Operations Section, or his deputy. Wilshire was also the key figure in the CIA’s withholding of information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi from the bureau.

These four people somehow managed to convince themselves that the Moussaoui case was a minor matter that deserved little attention and that the Minneapolis agents were, in Flack’s words, “maniacs.” Although very little is known about Wilshire’s involvement in the case, an e-mail used as evidence at the trial shows he shared this attitude; on August 24 he e-mailed his three colleagues asking for the latest on the “Minneapolis Airplane IV crowd,” although it is unclear whether this was a reference to Moussaoui and an associate or the Minneapolis field office.

This is one of the two key questions outstanding: where did this attitude come from? With hindsight, what the Minneapolis agents foresaw was not half as bad as what happened. It was not one airliner that flew into the WTC, but two, with another at the Pentagon and a fourth also aimed for Washington. Given the circumstances of the case, Minneapolis’ fears were reasonable and were shared both by a CIA detailee to the FBI, who predicted Moussaoui may crash a 747 into the White House, and at least one officer in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center. Given that we still lack information about the interactions between the four participants, we cannot say with whom this bad attitude originated. However, we can say that Wilshire shared and supported it.

It would take too long to summarise all the obstacles thrown up, but here are two examples: when French intelligence reported that, yes, they knew Moussaoui and, yes, he was an Islamist militant, Maltbie objected that maybe they were talking about some other guy with the same name. Therefore, Maltbie argued, the FBI should search all the telephone directories in France to see how many people called Zacarias Moussaoui actually lived there.

The second example involves a comment made by Moussaoui’s imam on a phone monitored by the FBI to the presumed accomplice arrested with him. “I heard you guys wanted to go on jihad,” said the imam. “Don’t talk about that now,” was the reply. Frasca’s response upon learning this? “The jihad comment doesn’t concern me by itself in that this word can mean many things in various [M]uslim cultures and is frequently taken out of context.”

Other roadblocks included Frasca’s ban on Minneapolis applying for a criminal warrant itself, Maltbie blocking a referral to the Justice Department’s criminal division, Flack’s inability to provide the Phoenix memo to anyone else after she read it, the withholding of the relevant documentation from attorneys asked to assess the case, the deletion of key passages from an application for an intelligence warrant, etc., etc.

When the case became public knowledge after the attacks the bureau was a laughing stock—they arrested one of the hijackers (actually more of an associate) over three weeks before the attacks but were unable to even file a warrant application to search his luggage. What’s worse, the bureau was so completely clueless that it even failed to inform its own acting director, Thomas Pickard, of the case. How much more incompetent could it get? This dynamic was made even worse when one of the Minneapolis office employees, Coleen Rowley, went public with her criticism of FBI headquarters, becoming one of Time’s people of the year for 2002.

Logically, if the information came into FBI headquarters, but didn’t get to the acting director, it must have stopped with someone. So who was that someone? The most senior official to be told about the case was Rolince, but he received scant information on it for nearly two weeks. The two people below him were his consultant/deputy Tom Wilshire and RFU chief Dave Frasca and the blame needs to be shared between them. Exactly how it should be apportioned out we don’t know—the relevant reports, by the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/11 Commission, and Justice Department inspector general, are silent on who should carry the can—and the inspector general omits even to mention that not informing the bureau’s director was a failure. This is symptomatic of the reports’ approach—nobody who performed badly was held accountable.

Wilshire’s role in the deliberate withholding of information from the FBI about Pentagon hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi makes his presence in the Moussaoui case alarming. However, although Wilshire certainly had a malign influence on the case, there is no smoking-gun proof of wilful malfeasance on his part. What we do know, however, is that this case was a significant stimulus for the reform of the US intelligence community. Without knowing what actually happened here and why, we have no way of judging whether those reforms were warranted and appropriate. Perhaps it would have been better to fire those who performed badly, instead of promoting them.

# # # #

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.

-President Bush, December 17, 2005

In the aftermath of 9/11, reams of newsprint were given over to discussing the CIA and FBI failures before the attacks; the agency had some of the hijackers under surveillance and allegedly lost them, the bureau was unable even to inform its own acting director of the Zacarias Moussaoui case. However, the USA’s largest and most powerful intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, got a free ride. There was no outcry over its failings, no embarrassing Congressional hearings for its director. Yet, as we will see, the NSA’s performance before 9/11 was shocking.

It is unclear when the NSA first intercepted a call by one of the nineteen hijackers. Reporting indicates it began listening in on telephone calls to the home of Pentagon hijacker Khalid Almihdhar’s wife some time around late 1996. However, although Almihdhar certainly did stay there later, it is unclear whether he lived there at that time. The house, in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, was a key target for the US intelligence community as it was Osama bin Laden’s communication hub, run by Almihdhar’s father-in-law Ahmed al-Hada.

The NSA kept the Yemen communications hub secret from the rest of the US intelligence community. However, Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, found out about it through an agency officer loaned to the NSA. Even after the discovery, the NSA refused to provide transcripts of the calls, meaning Alec Station could not crack the simple code the al-Qaeda operatives used. This was one reason the 1998 East African embassy bombings—assisted by al-Hada—were successful despite the bombers being known to numerous intelligence agencies.

 The first time the NSA is known for certain to have intercepted a call involving the hijackers was in early 1999, when the call involved Almihdhar and his fellow Flight 77 hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi. The NSA did not disseminate a report on this call, although the heavily redacted text of the Congressional Inquiry’s 9/11 report indicates it should have. The NSA continued to intercept Almihdhar’s calls throughout 1999, when he apparently spoke to al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash, now languishing in Guantanamo Bay.

In late December 1999, the NSA picked up a call that tipped it off about al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit meeting—a unique meeting of al-Qaeda leaders in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur. The NSA alerted both the FBI and CIA, the latter of which monitored Almihdhar, Alhazmi and their various associates at the meeting in cooperation with Malaysian colleagues. However, the CIA claims, it did not learn much about what the participants were planning.

Almihdhar and Alhazmi then travelled via Bangkok and Hong Kong to Los Angeles, but, the CIA says, it lost them on the way.

 Nevertheless, beginning a few months before the two men moved in with an FBI informer in San Diego, they began making calls back to the Yemen hub. At this time Almihdhar was on the NSA’s watchlist and the agency intercepted the calls, but generally did not disseminate reports on them.

Almihdhar left the US in the summer, returning to the Yemen hub a few months before the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen’s second city of Aden. Reports indicate that Almihdhar was involved in the bombing and that the bombers used the Yemen hub phone to “put everything together,” but the NSA apparently did nothing. There are no mentions in the media of the NSA’s inspector general investigating the agency’s performance before the Cole—or before the embassy bombings or 9/11 for that matter.

The NSA continued to intercept calls between the hijackers in the US and the Yemen hub, but sat on information that could obviously have been used to roll up the plot. The FBI, which learned of the number itself during the embassy bombing investigation, had mapped al-Qaeda’s global network based on calls from the hub and had specifically asked the NSA to be notified about all calls between it and the US. However, no notification of the calls ever arrived at the bureau.

The NSA also intercepted calls between alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on the one hand and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and attack coordinator Ramzi bin al-Shibh on the other. Again, it appears not much was done with these calls.

When the Congressional Inquiry first published its report, the controversy over the massive redactions was centered on the deletion of 28 pages alleging certain elements of the Saudi government had supported the hijackers. The passages on the NSA also suffered badly from redactions, making them hard to comprehend, and some events did not appear at all in the published version of the report.

This pattern was followed by the 9/11 Commission, which practically ignored the NSA in its public activities. Only one former NSA official testified publicly; he had left the agency in the early 1990s and his input focused on the FBI and CIA. Likewise, mentions of the agency are scarce in the commission’s final report, which entirely omits to remind readers the NSA intercepted calls between the hijackers in the US and al-Qaeda’s operations center in Yemen.

Two aspects of this are most disturbing. Firstly, it is clear that a group of CIA officials at Alec Station deliberately withheld information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi from the FBI. At the same time, the NSA was failing to pass on related information about the two men to the bureau. Should we write this off as a mere coincidence, or should we consider the possibility that somebody at the NSA engaged in deliberate wrongdoing?

Second, the NSA’s failure to exploit the US-Yemen hub calls before the attack was the reason for the agency’s expanded powers, in particularly its warrantless domestic wiretapping, after 9/11. This was stated most clearly by President Bush in a radio address after the New York Times broke the story in late 2005. The very first justification Bush reached for is contained in the quote at the top of this article.

So, the NSA failed to pass on information about the hijackers, perhaps deliberately to aid CIA machinations, and has not even stated publicly whether and how it investigated this failure, let alone what the conclusions of such inquiry might be. Nevertheless, with remarkable speed it used its failure as a justification for massive new powers. This is just one of the legacies of 9/11.

Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Money makes the world go ‘round. Whose money spins your planet?  In recent decades, Saudi Arabia emerged as a skillful puppeteer, pulling the strings of its expanding influence. Dare to see the big picture, out of the context of pseudo-political loyalties, free of the intoxicating opiate of the mainstream media. Look behind the mask of false pretenses to see the awful truth: riches seeking ever more money, celebrity looking for more notoriety, propaganda masquerading as the truth and the deprivation of liberties posturing as the savior in the “war on terror”.

To uncover who is truly in control, all you have to do is follow the money.  

Since the mid-eighties, British and American politicians have been operating under suspicion of being compromised by al-Yamamah, the $80 billion Anglo-Saudi black operations slush fund. It is the product of the 20-year oil-for-arms barter deal, wherein BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace), Britain’s largest defense contractor, reportedly paid bribes to sell combat fighter planes, helicopters, tanks and ammunitions to Saudi Arabia. In return for the arms, the Saudi’s agreed to supply hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day to the British. It was the largest arms deal in UK history that was arranged in a way that circumvented any potential objections by the U.S. Congress.

BAE (the world’s second largest defense company) was said to have paid millions into accounts controlled by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a highly influential former ambassador to Washington, DC. Prince Bandar’s close ties to the Bush family prompted the nickname “Bandar Bush”. Bandar’s children reportedly attended school with Cheney’s grandchildren. The power Bandar wielded was extraordinary. For decades he was a close friend to five U.S. Presidents and numerous CIA directors, as well as heads of state and monarchs of other countries. In the Bush years, Bandar became virtually part of the administration, able to enter the White House unannounced. Ever a master manipulator, Bandar skillfully controlled the mainstream media, with the Washington Post being his paper of choice when it came to royal leaks.

Bandar had his hand in some of the biggest scandals in modern history. During the Reagan presidency, Bandar secured the purchase of AWACs surveillance aircraft, despite opposition from AIPAC (after the U.S. rejected an arms order, Bandar covertly arranged the delivery of intermediate-range nuclear-warhead-capable missiles from China). He was exposed for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, having arranged $32 million in Saudi financing for the Nicaraguan Contras. Bandar’s wife was reportedly sending money to one of the 9/11 hijackers. President George W. Bush told Prince Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before he told Secretary of State Colin Powell about it (incidentally, another one of Prince Bandar’s close connections).

Planning wars is just one of many perks that come with having friends in high places. Those connections came in handy when Bandar was accused of siphoning off $100 million per year for 10 years, in a $2 billion contract between Saudi Arabia and BAE.

The al-Yamamah “slush fund” was first reported by a whistleblower in 2001, but British Ministry of Defense covered up those allegations. In 2004, another whistleblower disclosed further details of the bribery scandal to the Guardian, prompting an investigation by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.

In 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a secret visit to Riyadh to expedite one of BAE’s deals with the Saudi princes. Blair agreed to sell to the Saudis 24 jets ahead of schedule, by letting them get their hands on the jets that were already allotted for the British armed forces.

In 2006, when investigators were about to gain access to the Swiss bank accounts linked to Saudi royal family, Tony Blair blocked a corruption investigation against them. Blair said that the probe would have led nowhere except to the “complete wreckage” of a vital strategic relationship. Translation: “We don’t want to upset our rich Saudi benefactors.” The Saudis were apparently threatening to back out of a lucrative deal and to halt their participation in anti-terrorism efforts. Bandar had arrogantly warned a U.K. official that “British lives on British streets were at risk” if the investigation was allowed to continue.

The British High Court ruled that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government may have interfered with the rule of law in December 2006, when it ordered the British government’s Serious Fraud Office to shut down its bribery investigation. Blair claimed that his decision to scrap the probe was made purely in the interest of national security. The court blasted him in a scathing rebuke that stated in part, “No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice…It is the failure of Government… to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court.” Blair also ensured that the report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on BAE’s dealings in Saudi Arabia was not published. It remains the only NAO report never to have been made public. British Ministry of Defense stated, “The report remains sensitive. Disclosure would harm both international relations and the UK’s commercial interests.”

In 2007, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the world’s anti-bribery watchdog, rebuked the government for terminating SFO investigation and launched its own inquiry. During the same year, the U.S. Department of Justice was forced to investigate, since the U.K. government was criticized in the press for halting the inquiry. The DOJ had the jurisdiction, since Prince Bandar received some of the funds in question in Washington, DC.

Prince Bandar has retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to represent him in connection with the DOJ probe. In a videotaped interview, Freeh admitted on behalf of Bandar that approximately $2 billion was sent from the al-Yamamah account in the United Kingdom to bank accounts of the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation at Riggs Bank in Washington, DC. Prince Bandar, who was serving at the time as Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. exercised control and had signatory authority over those bank accounts. Freeh admits that these monies were sent to purchase arms through the offices of BAE, which was done in a way that would circumvent “objection” by the U.S. Congress.

Interestingly enough, former FBI Director Louis Freeh is linked to another aspect of 9/11, as a former boss of John Patrick O’Neill, a top American anti-terrorism expert. In 1995, O’Neill investigated the roots of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef. He also investigated the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen.

After years of investigating terrorism, O’Neill was convinced that “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama Bin Laden’s organization can be found in Saudi Arabia.” In spite of praising O’Neill and his efforts, not everyone shared his enthusiasm for pursuing and exposing the Saudi links to terror. O’Neill voiced his frustrations with Saudis’ lack of cooperation to Freeh.

As a Director of the FBI, Freeh was involved in controversial investigations of the events at the Ruby Ridge and Waco. The FBI under Freeh was accused of such severe cover-ups that U.S. Marshals had to be dispatched to relieve them of the evidence. Businessweek called for Freeh to resign, stating in part that he “has overseen a bureau that has bungled investigations of high-profile criminal cases and repeatedly misled probers and judges in legal proceedings — never more shamelessly than in the matter of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee. At the same time, Freeh’s FBI has tried to run roughshod over the civil liberties of ordinary citizens, demanding access to encryption codes and elbowing its way onto every PC in the country through its Carnivore project.”

The New York Times wrote that “Freeh will probably go down as either the F.B.I. director who slept as terrorists prepared to attack the World Trade Center or as the man who hounded Bill Clinton for seven years.” Interestingly enough, just like Freeh, Bandar has been working to undermine President Bill Clinton for quite some time.

John P. O’Neill certainly wasn’t sleeping on his watch or worrying about sexual proclivities of mischievous Presidents. He had gained a tremendous knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network, but was repeatedly excluded from terrorism investigations. He became the target of a smear campaign and was subjected to petty internal inquiries. This is not uncommon within federal government, as a tactic that is routinely used to silence those who come across any information that has the potential of embarrassing the government. Freeh was reportedly involved in those attempts to force O’Neill out of the Bureau.

After leaving the FBI, O’Neill became the head of security at the World Trade Center, where he perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks, while attempting to save others.

In a book “The Age of Sacred Terror”, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon state that Louis Freeh deliberately withheld information about Bin Laden and the precursors for the attack of 9/11 from the White House.

Richard A. Clarke, a former top counter-terrorism advisor for the White House, criticized Freeh and his actions in his book, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.” Clarke also expressed serious concerns about Freeh’s representation of Bandar, stating, “Someone who characterizes himself as a U.S. patriot and national security advocate ought not to be on the side of someone blackmailing people not to investigate crimes by threatening to withdraw a nation’s cooperation against terrorists.”

Prior to his tenure as the FBI Director, Freeh was appointed by President George H. W. Bush as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York. He also forged an alliance with “Bandar Bush”. Freeh traveled to Saudi Arabia many times, meeting with Bandar and the highest levels of Saudi government in a relationship that started during Freeh’s investigation of the 1996 Khobar bombing. The secrecy surrounding it has been such that Dale Watson, the FBI’s Chief of Counter-Terrorism, once said, “It’s a killing offense around here to talk about it.”

What was Freeh doing during that time? He started courting Bandar, spending time in his heavily guarded mansion in McLean, Virginia. Bandar also visited Freeh at his FBI office, where the privileged Saudi visitor was the only one ever allowed to smoke cigars. Louis Freeh was bending over backwards to express his respect of the Arab culture and Sharia. He was “cultivating personal relationships” with Bandar, as well as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and other prominent Saudi officials. Freeh said, “The statutory authorities and the resources and all the other factors are significant, but my experience is that none of them are as important as those relationships.”

Could those relationships be the reason behind Freeh’s failure to pursue Saudi links to terror? His shameless hobnobbing with the Saudis has proven to be important (and lucrative) indeed, since Louis Freeh left the FBI and went on to represent Prince Bandar. The New Yorker reported that “Bandar, like Freeh, is skilled at cultivating people to get things done. Unlike other ambassadors, who exist on the ceremonial fringe, Bandar has real power.”

Prince Bandar said, “If you tell me… that we misused or got corrupted with $50 billion, I’ll tell you, “Yes.” … But, more important, more important — who are you to tell me this? … What I’m trying to tell you is, so what? We did not invent corruption, nor did those dissidents, who are so genius, discover it. This happened since Adam and Eve. … I mean, this is human nature.”

In 2008, when BAE refused to cooperate with the bribery investigation, the DOJ detained its former CEO Mike Turner and other top executives at the airport for questioning. The Times (Rupert Murdoch’s company, which boasts significant Saudi ownership) complained that “such humiliating behaviour by the DOJ was unusual because most companies co-operate with regulators.” Most companies may cooperate with regulators, but BAE was clearly not one of them.

On February 5, 2010, BAE pled guilty to foreign bribery charges, conspiring to defraud the United States, to make false statements about its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program, to violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). According to the statement of criminal information filed by the DOJ, BAE’s gains from these violations exceeded $200 million dollars. BAE was ordered to pay $447 million dollars in fines to U.S authorities – one of the largest criminal fines in the history of DOJ.

The DOJ filing reflected that BAE began serving as the prime contractor to the U.K. government in the mid-1980s, after the U.K. and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) entered into a formal agreement. BAE started to provide millions to Prince Bandar (whose name the DOJ conspicuously omitted from its charging papers, referring to “Bandar Bush” as “KSA official”), who was in a position of influence regarding sales of fighter jets, other defense materials and related support services. Over a billion dollars was reportedly sent to two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, DC controlled by Prince Bandar. BAE also transferred over a billion dollars to a bank account in Switzerland controlled by an intermediary, being aware that these payments would also go to Prince Bandar. It is claimed that Bandar received over $1 billion dollars over the course of 10 years, with the knowledge and authorization of British Ministry of Defense officials.

Following BAE’s criminal conviction by the DOJ, the U.S. State Department also filed charges against the company for committing over 2,591 separate violations, which were settled in May of 2011 for a civil fine of $79 million dollars. In an Internet notice posted on March 1, 2010, the State Department advised export license applicants to remove BAE products from their applications, if possible. That portion of the notice was withdrawn the very next day. In a comment to “Defense News” about such blatant back-peddling, a Washington trade lawyer commented, “What State has done sends a terrible message. It makes it seem like State does not have a handle on what it wants to do – or that it’s being manipulated by outside interests.”

The State Department noted that BAE’s willful refusal to cooperate resulted in “the incomplete nature of the investigation” and therefore the government was unable “to assess fully the potential harm to U.S. national security.” Nonetheless, the settlement rescinded the statutory debarment, allowing BAE to get right back to business. BAE is apparently “too big to bar.” Although the company was sanctioned with a criminal fine of over $400 million for its foreign corrupt practices, none of BAE’s executives were prosecuted. A felony conviction could have interfered with BAE’s ability to compete for U.S. contracts, but it didn’t. No one seemed too concerned that BAE paid millions in bribes, to include payments made to the likes of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator. In the 365 days that followed, BAE was awarded roughly $58 billion in US government contracts.

Similarly, nothing got in the way of BAE’s takeover of the US-based Armor Holdings. U.S. regulators approved the deal, in spite of the company’s history of multibillion dollar bribery and corruption. The Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch’s company, which boasts significant Saudi ownership) reported that the purchase would bolster BAE’s expansion in the U.S. and the increase of its involvement in military ground vehicles. Bribery and corruption continued. On July 13, 2011, Armor Holdings settled charges of bribery with the Department of Justice and the SEC. The charges arise out of bribes paid to obtain contracts to supply body armor for U.N. peacekeepers (SEC v. Armor Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:11-CV-01271).  Armor Holdings agreed to pay a total of $5,690,744 to the SEC and $10,290,000 to the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve the charges. Of course, none of the company’s executives were prosecuted.

In 2005, BAE purchased United Defense Industries, maker of combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions.

The implication of these dealings is that a company under control of Saudi money and influence, with a documented history of bribery and corruption, owns an enormous slice of the American defense industry, striving to be the Pentagon’s biggest supplier. The threat surpasses the “Fast and Furious” faux pas on an unimaginable scale, because Saudi Arabia (with its undeniable links to terror) now controls massive military enterprises inside the U.S.

A report, prepared by a bipartisan panel of terrorism experts for the Council on Foreign Relations, sharply criticized the Bush administration for its lackadaisical approach towards Saudi Arabia’s involvement in terror funding, which remains a “lethal threat” to the United States. CFR report concludes that “it is worth stating clearly and unambiguously what official U.S. government spokespersons have not: “For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda… It would be wrong to say that no progress has been made… But it would be equally wrong to overstate the progress that has been made—a mistake that is too often made by U.S. government spokespersons. In recent years, for instance, Saudi Arabia has taken two or three important steps to improve its capability to cooperate on these matters with the United States, for which it should be commended. A hundred more steps and Saudi Arabia may be where it needs to be.”

The report profoundly summarized why the U.S. is neither being taken seriously by the rest of the world in our “war on terror”, nor does our own government take it seriously enough to abandon its unholy alliances: “The Task Force appreciates the necessary delicacies of diplomacy and notes that previous administrations also used phrases that obfuscated more than they illuminated when making public statements on this subject. Nevertheless, when U.S. spokespersons are willing to say only that “Saudi Arabia is being cooperative” when they know very well all the ways in which it is not, both our allies and our adversaries can be forgiven for believing that the United States does not place a high priority on this issue.”

No one can deny the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden himself was Saudi-born. During a 2002 raid on a Saudi-based charity, Benevolence International Foundation, FBI agents discovered a handwritten list of 20 alleged Al Qaeda financiers. Bin Laden referred to this informal financial network of prominent Saudi and Gulf individuals as “the Golden Chain.” FBI agents said that two Saudis with direct links to Al Qaeda, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, acted as conduits for financial aid for the 9/11 hijackers and other Saudi militants. They received “seemingly unlimited funding” from Saudi Arabia. Bassnan and his family reportedly obtained significant support from Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of Prince Bandar.

In the days following 9/11, with the blessing of George W. Bush, at least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the U.S. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the Bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country. At least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. The White House denied the very existence of that flight for years, until they finally revealed some of its details in response to a request from the 9/11 Commission. Former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 3, 2003 and stated in part: “It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can’t say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” 

In 2002, the Congress noted that Saudi links to 9/11 are not being adequately explored.

In 2003, Los Angeles Times reported that the classified pages were kept out of a congressional report about 9/11. They demonstrated that the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers, but also allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts. A U.S. official who has read the document said that it describes “very direct, very specific links” between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators “that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.”

In his book, “Intelligence Matters”, former Florida Senator Robert Graham also highlighted connections between a Saudi government spy and the planners of the terrorist attacks, criticizing the deletion of 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission Report that dealt with Saudi Arabia.

“The Commission: The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation”, written by Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter for the New York Times, discusses revelations contained in a classified portion of a House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee report. It discusses the Saudi links to the 9/11 attacks. The pages pertaining to the Saudi connections never saw the light of day because the White House invoked executive privilege.

While the officials refuse to declassify this information, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld exposed them in her book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It”. She was subsequently sued by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz for “libel” and relentlessly harassed by his affiliates. Ehrenfeld, Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, refused to be intimidated. She championed the SPEECH Act (the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) to guard American authors and publishers from enforcement of frivolous foreign libel judgments that undermine the First Amendment and American due process standards. This bill was signed into law on August 10, 2010.

Frustrated by the government’s failure to hold anyone personally accountable in the BAE bribery scandal, the city of Harper Woods, Michigan has filed a lawsuit against BAE Systems over allegations that the company funneled bribes to Prince Bandar. Harper Woods was intimately involved in a $100 billion international arms deal, because its $40 million employee pension fund includes about $135,000 invested in BAE Systems. William Bradford Reynolds, who served as the Chief of the Justice Department’s civil rights division during the Reagan administration, signed on to represent Bandar in this lawsuit. During this litigation, a U.S. court froze Prince Bandar’s assets in the U.S., reportedly worth over $150 million dollars.

Bandar was clearly furious about these developments. When George W. Bush visited Saudi Arabia, he asked, “Where’s my pal Bandar?” In response, he was told that Bandar is unavailable. During Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia, old pal Bandar was similarly a no-show.

In 2009, the U.S. District court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, holding that English law controls and therefore the city of Harper Woods has no standing to pursue the action. This was a predictable outcome, given the political control of the U.S. government over the judiciary. For the last quarter of a century, motivated by greed, many of our elected officials chose to hold the interests of Saudi Arabian oligarchs above those of the American people.

As of 2011, Bandar is back as a force in world politics. He was present in recent meetings between Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (former director of the CIA) and King Abdullah, as well as during a separate visit by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. United States’ recently sold $60 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, including 84 new F-15 fighter jets (in addition to upgrading 70 of their existing F-15s), 190 helicopters as well as a wide array of missiles and bombs. The deal was announced while Congress was in recess, to ensure that it would move forward without interruptions by any possible opponents.

This was the largest purchase of American arms in Saudi Arabia’s history. Gates also urged King Abdullah to buy an upgraded version of Patriot air defense missiles and the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System, which is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles of longer range. Gates told reporters, “I think the relationship is in a good place.” This “relationship” seems to be blooming indeed, since the U.S. continues to sell arms to the country with direct ties to terrorism.

You may have noticed that the mainstream media avoids discussing the issues of Saudi influence and links to 9/11. There’s a good explanation for that. It so happens that the second largest shareholder of News Corp. is Saudi billionaire, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. His slice of the pie is topped only by the holdings of Rupert Murdoch himself.

Al-Waleed involved himself in a variety of Western enterprises and powerhouses, including but not limited to Sony (now planning to launch more Arabic TV shows), Michael Jackson, Rupert Murdoch’s scandalous media empire, AOL/Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, Amazon, Apple, Citigroup, Coca Cola, Compaq, Disneyland, eBay, Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, Kodak, McDonald’s, Motorola, PepsiCo, Priceline, Procter & Gamble and General Motors.

Not to be outdone, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, a company that owns MSNBC and is already firmly entrenched in Saudi Arabia, also approached Al-Waleed and solicited him to invest in GE.

In case you were wondering, the acronym “MSM” nowadays stands for “Mainly Saudi Media”.

Al-Waleed was quoted asserting that Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making “if they unite through economic interests, not political…We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion…And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration, but also inside U.S. society.” Al-Waleed donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, also known as the “Ground Zero Mosque“. The majority of the American public didn’t take too kindly to that idea.

To bolster their public image, the Saudis hired a PR firm and scores of high-powered Washington lobbyists. Saudi Arabia’s shabby public image in the U.S. has long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system that believes in chopping off heads and limbs, complete absence of religious freedom, nonexistent human rights and ongoing abuses against women. According to the Department of Justice records, Saudi Arabia has spent over $20 million dollars on public relations, advertising and lobbying. Relentless PR efforts to clean up the Saudi image initially failed (especially when Al-Waleed claimed that the U.S. Foreign policy is to blame for the attacks of 9/11), but later started to pay off. The positive image of Saudi Arabia is being pushed in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

Starting in 2002, series of ads appeared on American TV, in major newspapers and magazines, were broadcast on radio stations and popped up all over the Internet. All of them featured slogans, representing Saudis as America’s allies in the “war on terror”. In August 2004, following the final release of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Saudi government paid for a series of new radio ads, repeatedly reiterating that no link had been established between Saudi Arabia and the terror attacks of 9/11.

One of the PR firms hired by Saudi Arabia, Qorvis Communications, who received millions for their activities, lobbied on Saudi Arabia’s behalf with US Congressional staffers 62 times in the first half of 2004. Saudi Arabia also arranged series of meetings with the editorial boards of major US newspapers, including The New York Times and USA Today, and secured appearances on numerous cable news programs.

A feature film “Unknown” prominently features a character of a benevolent and magnanimous Saudi prince who bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger. The film “Unknown” is based on the novel “Out of My Head” by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no such a character in the original version of the story. One has to wonder if this feature film is just another extension of Saudi Arabia’s multimillion dollar PR campaign.

Anything that challenges the dominance of Saudi Arabia, as it holds the rest of the world over an oil barrel, or exposes the complicity of First World country governments is assaulted with all the might of the brute force that deems itself too powerful to be held accountable. It’s quite a spectacular feat for a primitive oligarchy of Saudi Arabia to achieve such a level of control over the world’s supposed super-powers through oil and money, usurping ownership of Western arms, politics and mainstream media. Money does make the world go ‘round – and with this much money being thrown around, our world seems to be spinning out of control.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Newsworthy

Foreign Powers behind “Cambodia Killing Fields?” 

US Turns Heat on ISI: Says it Spies on Pakistani-Americans

Iran Draws the Line with Turkey on Syria

More Predator Drones for Libya

As Central Asia Dries Up, States Spar Over Shrinking Resources

Murdoch’s Misery, China’s Delight

****

Obama Declares Transnational Organized Crime Threat A National Emergency!

You hack, We Shoot:  Pentagon Discusses Armed Counter-strikes to Cyber-Attacks

$16 Trillion in Secret by Fed

Companies Churn Out Profits But Jobs Don’t Follow

 Lobbying Surges by AT&T & Other Communication Companies

1400 Arrests for Antiwar Protesters

****

Fear-Mongering & Servitude

The Power Elite & the Police State

9/11: Who Really Benefited?

Who Rules America: 0.1% Controls Legislative & Political Process

The lesser Evil

****

Video1: Former Guantanamo Guard-Whistleblower Brandon Neely on Former Guantanamo Inmate David Hicks

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Newsworthy

US War Planes Attack Southern Iraq

Yemen Conflict: Generating More Child Soldiers

Carrots for India, Sticks for Pakistan

The Role of UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya

Dubai Murder-Accused Had Kiwi Link?

A Brief List of Israeli Mossad’s Most Audacious Plots 

****

Pakistan Gave 4 Million Dollars to Illegal Kashmiri Lobby Group in Washington

Obama Top Recipient of Murdoch’s News Corp Donations?!

FBI ‘Anonymous’ Raid on Brooklyn Loft over DDOS Attack

Adding Up Human Cost of Iraq-Afghan Wars

****

How to Lobby for a Foreign Government & Not Get Arrested

Religious Wars in the Balkans was Orchestrated by USA & NATO

Idle Kingdom: Saudi Arabia’s Increasing Jobless Youth

****

Video- Ron Paul: ‘Freedom is a Young Idea & we are Throwing it Away’

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Newsworthy

US Rebuffs Russians Ingenuity on Iran

Missile Shield in Turkey? NATO Military Action against Iran Implies Suicide

Drone War in Pakistan: Photos from the Ground Showing Civilian Casualties

Canadian Military Stages Show of Force against Russia in Arctic

How Israel Offered to Sell South Africa Nuclear Weapons

100 Hours in Israeli Detention for Trying to Visit Bethlehem

****

DOJ Lawyers Contradict FBI Findings in Anthrax Case

DOJ Casts Serious Doubt on its own Claim about the Anthrax Attack

 USS Cole Bombing Case “Too Tainted” for Death-Penalty Trial

Obama Nominates Former Ohio AG, A Loyal Democratic Donor, to Lead New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Hollywood Producer Was an Israeli Nuclear Agent

****

US War Dept Dances on the Ceiling

Predator Drones & the International Mafia

Imperial Priorities: Obedience First, Character Last

Afghanistan: Hearts, Minds & Murders

Austerity for Everyone, Except the DOD

****

Video 1: In the Past 6 Years Only One Palestinian Minor Acquitted out of 835 Charged with Stone-Throwing!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

“The Terror Within” details the unprecedented magnitude of retaliation and abuses of the PATRIOT Act in the case of Julia Davis. The documentary will show American taxpayers how the DHS spent their money on aerial surveillance with a Blackhawk helicopter and a fixed-wing airplane, warrantless surveillance, wiretaps, sneak and peek burglaries, Internet monitoring and On-Star tracking of the Davis family.

“When people hear this story for the first time, they are in disbelief that something like this could happen in America. It shouldn’t, but it did. The truth is indeed stranger than fiction. You might think that events of this magnitude happen only in the movies – until it happens to you,” said Julia Davis.   

You can watch the trailer here.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Welcome. This is our EyeOpener Video Report by James Corbett for BoilingFrogsPost.com.

A recent court case in Utah has uncovered yet more evidence that the FBI is hiding key documents from the public by placing them in a separate, hitherto unknown electronic storage medium known as an “S-drive.” The fact that this drive was previously unknown has raised the specter that the FBI is using it as a place to hide requests for sensitive documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Now, a federal judge has given the FBI until the end of the month to explain what the S-drive is, how it is being used, and whether it contains key documents related to the case in question.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI is not required to say if a document exists, only that they searched their database and found no records responsive to the request. If these documents are placed in an external or disconnected storage drive, however, the agency can insure that they will never show up in any FOIA request. In fact, the FBI has been known to have used this very technique in the past. Going under such names as “June files,” “zero files” and “I-drive,” the agency has a long and documented history of placing key evidence in special, compartmentalized files that are reviewed by senior officials before the information is placed into the bureau’s official files.

Joining James Corbett this week to discuss the history and significance of the FBI’s secret storage drives are attorney Jesse Trentadue and the former privacy act coordinator at the Minneapolis FBI field office and noted FBI whistleblower, Coleen Rowley.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Bernard von NotHaus provides us with his account of his recent trial and conviction in March 2011 of counterfeiting money by issuing silver coins called Liberty Dollars. He tells us about the significant difference between counterfeiting and developing a competing currency within the law, and the hyperbole in labeling him as a “unique terrorist” and categorizing his activity as “domestic terrorism” by the FBI. Mr. von NotHaus talks about the Constitutional authority granted under Article 1, Section 10, to make legal tender out of gold and silver coins, the mysterious absence of the United States Secret Service in charges brought against him and the jurisdictionally questionable FBI’s lead in his arrest and prosecution, and more!

Bernard von NotHaus is the creator of the Liberty Dollar and an expert on private currencies and alternative economics. He retired eight years ago after 25 years as the Mintmaster at the Royal Hawaiian Mint. Currently he is the Monetary Architect at the Liberty Dollar organization, a non-profit, free enterprise entity that to date has distributed $20 million Liberty Dollars to a network of over 100,000 people. On March 18, 2011, after a 90 minute jury deliberation von NotHaus was found guilty on various counts, including the making of “counterfeit coins.” He was labeled a domestic terrorist by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Here is our guest Bernard von NotHaus unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Now I want you to consider a real-life case. The place- The United States of America. The court- United States Foreign Surveillance Court. The parties- US Federal Government vs. Secret Foreign Targets inside the Unites States. The purpose- for independent and judicial judges to oversee government requests for surveillance warrants, and after carefully reviewing the requests and shown causes, make decisions to grant or not to grant warrants. Last year, in 2010, the federal police agencies brought before these FISA judges 1506 such warrant requests. Last year, in 2010, the FISA Court, every single judge in the FISA Court, eleven out of eleven judges of the FISA Court, granted every single warrant requested of them by our federal police agencies. All 1506 of them. Every single request:

The secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved all 1,506 government requests to electronically monitor suspected “agents” of a foreign power or terrorists on U.S. soil last year, according to a Justice Department report released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two-page report, which shows about a 13 percent increase in the number of applications for electronic surveillance between 2009 and 2010, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists and published Friday.“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

The 11-member court denied two of 1,329 applications for domestic-intelligence surveillance in 2009. The FBI is the primary agency making those requests.

…

Let me preempt a few possible, and possibly reasonable, arguments in favor of this real-life and real US government case. May I?

The US Federal Government, in this case mainly the FBI, must be very diligent and thorough with their targets, evidence & presentation of these cases

There have been reports after reports issued by government-leaning government investigative agencies revealing widespread abuse of power, when it comes to our federal police agencies and their unchecked surveillance and search practices. This may give you the flavor and extent of what we are talking about here:

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats

…

Or maybe this one on how the FBI presents its cases to the federal courts:

Violations of the Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Other Legal Authorities: In the third category EFF found violations which “were consistently the most brazen and egregious” ones. FBI reported that “its agents had made false statements in written declarations to courts,” in addition to using “improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas.” The FBI would also use “a target’s username and password to access and download account information and a warrantless search of password-protected files.” However, it was found that these violations are often the most redacted and that redaction occurs on an inconsistent and arbitrary basis—supporting the conclusion that the FBI is withholding information.

…

This is not a big deal for us the citizens since the warrants allow only the surveillance of suspected foreign entities.

Okay, do you remember my State Secrets Privilege case? While I cannot divulge specifics such as the methods of intelligence gathering or target details, I can tell you this much: the FBI collects information directly and indirectly. What do I mean by that? Let’s say we have this foreign person José, and the FBI is tapping his phone and all his e-mails. This José guy in any given day talks with dozens of people over the phone, and some of these people who are either calling José or receiving calls from José are American citizens. The FBI collects everything said/written not only by José, but also everything said and written to José by everyone; including those non-suspect US citizens. Are you following me so far? Okay, good. Now, when the FBI gets what it considers ‘juicy stuff,’ not only criminal or terrorism related juicy, but even politically juicy stuff, it keeps, saves, shares and uses that information in various ways. It doesn’t matter whether the originator of the particular ‘juicy stuff’ is José the target or not. Please tell me you catch my drift!

Let me give you a real example of this. We, at FBI counterintelligence, had a certain foreign target we were monitoring 24/7 (all his/her communications). This target had intimate (financially, criminally, and in one case, sexually) relationships with several elected officials in the US Congress. The FBI had compiled thick files not only on the foreign target, but on every single congresswoman and congressman. And to add insult to injury, this was not done for the sake of justice and possible criminal prosecution, but for political leverage used in rainy days…A solid veteran FBI agent filed his documented complaint on these cases in 2001-2002:

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of Mr. Graham’s counterintelligence investigations involved espionage activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: “It is the complainant’s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.” Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.

Click here to read the unclassified version of SA Graham’s Official Report.

…

Rubber-Stamping Judges does not necessarily mean ‘Crooked Judges.’

You are wrong. In most cases it does. I have another veteran FBI agent who spent 4 years of his/her early career as an agent tasked with running background checks on to-be-appointed federal judges. Not a single candidate judge whom this agent obtained and documented various nefarious activities and or background on was excluded from judgeship. According to him/her, the DOJ-FBI shied away from ‘quirky and squeaky clean’ candidates.

Speaking of crooked and or crooked-smelling judges, let me leave you with a real-life real-judge of our current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court:

The judge who presided over the trial of vice presidential aide Lewis Libby has been appointed to the secret court that oversees U.S. intelligence wiretaps. Reggie Walton, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts effective May 19 [2007].

…

So who is this Judge Reggie Walton? Well, neither he nor the federal government wants you to know. They have ensured his not very ‘squeaky clean’ past remains a secret:

What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?

They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own.

All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial disclosure reports.”

The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times. …

…

So given the high-stakes poker being played in both these cases, one civil and one criminal, why has no one in the establishment press bothered to ask what is contained in Judge Walton’s financial disclosure statement? After all, his investments and financial backers would be of keen interest in gauging his ability to hear these cases in an unbiased manner, right?

…

So Judge Walton seems to be in a critical role in serving as the point man in the federal judicial system for two explosive cases — the Edmonds civil case and Libby’s criminal case — both of which have vast implications for the White House and for the country in general.

So shouldn’t we know who’s buttering Walton’s bread in terms of financial backing? Why have ethics rules mandating such disclosures, if the information is not disclosed in cases, such as these, where the stakes are so high?

Well, it seems, at least according to the only document that Judicial Watch could shake loose in its public-records quest, that Walton doesn’t think so. His financial disclosure statement, the one released for public inspection through Judicial Watch, is completely redacted, every line of it.

Take a look here for yourself.

Now, ask yourself, why would that be, and what might lurk in the shadows of Judge Walton’s fiscal closet? If there nothing to hide, then there is nothing to lose by shedding some light on the retractions, is there?

…

I am going to answer one of Mr. Conroy’s excellent questions: “what might lurk in the shadows of Judge Walton’s fiscal closet?” My answer: It is exactly what it takes to be appointed to FISA Court as a judge
 

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Here at Boiling Frogs Post we have been covering the infamous Turkish Imam Fethullah Gulen, his $25 Billion network and CIA guardians, his more than 1000 Madrasas in the Balkans, Central Asia, Caucasus and elsewhere, his Charter School Empire here in our backyard, and of course, as always, the incredible blackout and selective coverage by the US mainstream media when it comes to this controversial operator. Maybe all that work was not totally futile after all. In the past few weeks, thanks to relentless and collective efforts by a group of concerned American teachers-activists, Imam Gulen has been receiving some deservedly eye-brow rising media coverage. Obviously, more than a few eyebrows must have been risen, since in a desperate attempt for damage control one of Fethullah Gulen’s main foundations has reached out and hired (make that bought out) George Bush’ queen of PR, his former campaign manager, and the former Undersecretary of State, Karen Hughes. The buyout terms must have been very steep since both parties, Gulen’s Cosmo-Hughes, have been mum about it when questioned:

The largest of the Texas charter operators, Cosmos Foundation, Inc., has hired no less than Karen Hughes of PR heavyweights Burson-Marsteller to — uh, what’s the word I’m looking for — help Cosmos pass the school construction bond bills. Other than the fact that Karen Hughes has declined to state how much cash she’s receiving for her, uh, help with the bond bills…

…

Here is Karen Hughes in action, paving the way to her lucrative lobbying and PR position with Imam Gulen’s Charter School operations:

Here is a clip from one recent exposé on Gulen’s Charter School Empire:

There is not much information or details on the federal investigations of Gulen’s charter schools other than that the investigations are being coordinated by prosecutors in Pennsylvania where Gulen resides in his private castle, guarded by more than 50 Turkish security guards:

…but federal agencies – including the FBI and the Departments of Labor and Education – are investigating whether some charter school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service, according to knowledgeable sources.

Unlike in Turkey, where Gulen’s followers have been accused of pushing for an authoritarian Islamic state, there is no indication the American charter network has a religious agenda in the classroom.

Religious scholars consider the Gulen strain of Islam moderate, and the investigation has no link to terrorism. Rather, it is focused on whether hundreds of Turkish teachers, administrators, and other staffers employed under the H1B visa program are misusing taxpayer money.

Federal officials declined to comment on the nationwide inquiry, which is being coordinated by prosecutors in Pennsylvania’s Middle District in Scranton. A former leader of the parents’ group at the State College school confirmed that federal authorities had interviewed her.

Bekir Aksoy, who acts as Gulen’s spokesman, said Friday that he knew nothing about charter schools or an investigation.

…

Recently released Wikileaks cables contain some details on US unease over Gulen’s operations:

Classified documents recently released by WikiLeaks recount U.S. officials’ growing concern over large numbers of Turkish men seeking visas to work at American charter schools founded by followers of Fethullah Gulen, a powerful Turkish Muslim political figure who lives in the Poconos.

“Gulen supporters account for an increasing proportion of [the] . . . nonimmigrant visa applicant pool,” a consular official in Istanbul, Turkey, wrote in 2006, according to one of the documents posted by WikiLeaks two weeks ago.

“Consular officials have noticed that most of these applicants share a common characteristic: They are generally evasive about their purpose of travel to the United States.”

…

One destination for visa holders is the Truebright Science Academy, a charter school founded in North Philadelphia by followers of Gulen.An analysis of H1-B visas conducted for The Inquirer showed that the number granted for Gulen charter schools has grown substantially since that 2006 report. More than 2,500 have been issued since 2007.

…

The acting chief executive at Truebright, Tansu Cidav, has declined to discuss the school’s operation.

Turkish staffers at Truebright are paid more than their American counterparts, state pension records show. In the last school year, a Turkish math teacher who was not certified and spoke little English was paid $54,000; a certified American science teacher was paid $40,200.

…

The common theme of Gulen’s US network in dealing with the recent inquiries and investigations seems to be: ‘No comments.’ They have refused to acknowledge or respond to all inquiries, even those on the minutest details of their American tax payers’ funded operations.

You know where I stand when it comes to partisanship and all the evils associated with it, right? Well, one of the very rare (if not only) positives that comes out of partisanship (sometimes) is the drive to bring out the ‘real’ dirt when it is associated with the other side-party. Unfortunately, this won’t be the case with Gulen’s operations. The pocketing of Karen Hughes for damage control and to further their nefarious activities will not become a ‘cause’ for the blind followers of the opposite party-the Democrats. Gulen’s operatives have been playing cleverly and safely (just like the MIC and the like): They have been pocketing and playing figureheads from both parties,

It’s very difficult to believe that any politician from the Chicago area would have nothing to do with the Turkish community there. For Jan Schakowsky to deny any relationship would be utter foolishness, of course, because she’s been very much involved lately with the Fethullah Gulen movement through the Chicago-based Niagara Foundation, whose honorary president is none other than Hocaefendi himself. This year Schakowsky wrote a Letter of Recognition for the Niagara Foundations 2009 “Peace and Dialogue Awards”. And Schakowsky did the same in 2008 and in 2007.

Naturally, these facts raise questions. How intimately does Representative Schakowsky know the Niagara Foundation in order for her to show such consistent and strong support? What benefits does the Niagara Foundation provide Schakowsky and the City of Chicago? Since the Chicago City Council backs and promotes the Niagara Foundation, what is the foundation’s real connection to Mayor Daly and former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, both of whom are involved in major, ongoing corruption cases?

…

Those of you who are new to this website, you may want to check out our coverage of Gulen’s operations here at Boiling Frogs Post in order to get a better view of recent developments. At the time, I received more than my fair share of ‘anonymous’ attacks and criticism for my coverage of Gulen Operations while the mainstream media was busy hushing the issue, sanitizing Gulen’s history-present, and censoring documented evidence. I wish I could say I feel a bit better seeing the recent small scale of media attention-interest, but I cannot. The latest coverage does not even begin to touch the buried explosive facts…but I will be cautiously optimistic. Here are a few select articles and analyses written and published by Boiling Frogs Post on Imam Gulen:

Did You Know: The King of Madrasas Now Operates over 100 Charter Schools in US?

Turkish Intel Chief Exposes CIA Operations via Islamic Group in Central Asia

Additional Omitted Points in CIA-Gulen Coverage & A Note From ‘The Insider’

The Sanitized Gulen Coverage Continues

This is it for now on the latest Gulen coverage. We were covering Gulen’s operations and related topics when it was unpopular, and we will pursue it after it ceases to be semi-popular. Please support Boiling Frogs Post and allow us bring to you what others won’t.

In February 2004 Behrooz Sarshar provided the 9/11 Commission’s investigators with specific documents and names of the related witnesses, including the full name and contact information of the key “FBI Asset/Informant” in an FBI case titled ‘Kamikaze Pilots.’ However, the commission chose not to contact or interview any of these witnesses, including FBI Director Robert Mueller. The Commission’s final report did not mention a single word of this documented testimony, and their recently released memorandum omitted the entire interview with no explanation provided.

The following information was provided by Mr. Sarshar to several Congressional offices and investigators, including staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee’s leading Democrat at the time, Senator Patrick Leahy, and the Justice Department’s Inspector General Office.  I was present during at least four meetings where the briefings were recorded and documented. While working at the Bureau I was briefed on this case by not only Mr. Sarshar but another firsthand witness, and I saw the actual 302 forms filed with the unit’s squad supervisor (FBI language specialists get to keep a copy of their reports/forms). Further, I personally briefed the 9/11 commission investigators on the details of this particular case, which is confirmed by the commission’s memorandum.

I have only deleted sensitive personal information related to the FBI informant-Asset, and as you’ll see every single deleted item (by me-indicated as S.E.) has been indicated in bold-italics. Other than that, the information below is exactly what was recounted by Mr. Sarshar on four occasions:

FBI File Name: “Kamikaze Pilots”

In the early 90s the Bureau hired an Iranian man as an informant, placed him on its payroll at approximately fifteen hundred dollars per month, and used him and his information in several criminal, counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations and investigations. Over time this informant, a man in his (Informant’s Age Information Deleted by S.E.), proved to be extremely reliable, and his information was found to be trustworthy.

This man had been the head of SAVAK, Iran’s main Intelligence agency, counterintelligence unit during the Shah’s regime. His area of operations involved the East and Southeastern region of Iran, and the countries under him were Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. He also managed the unit’s intelligence gathering operations in Sistan and Baluchistan, two semi-independent regions on the border with Afghanistan. Unlike U.S. agencies, the intelligence agency in Iran conducted most, if not all, of its surveillance and information gathering operations via human intelligence and sources. The man, the informant, was very good at what he did; he had established a large number of sources and informants scattered in the strategically most important areas within these countries.

Immediately after the Islamic Revolution, he planned his escape out of the country. All former SAVAK and military intelligence had been placed on the black list of the new regime, and death warrants had been issued for them. He successfully escaped Iran, and then spent several years in (Names of the informant’s previous residences/countries deleted by S.E.) where he tried to obtain a U.S. visa and come to the states, where many of his relatives and friends had already settled. In the late (date of Informant’s US entry deleted by S.E.) he succeeded and moved to the United States.

His reputation and his fame of having a wealth of resources for information all over the world had somehow reached the FBI by the early 1990s – around 1991-1992. Via a middleman, the Bureau was able to contact the man and persuade him to become an informant. He was placed on the payroll and began providing the Bureau with extremely useful and reliable information. The Bureau was so pleased with his performance that it began using him both as an informant and as an asset. On a regular basis, almost monthly, agents from the FBI HQ and WFO would meet with him at … and …and … (Meeting locations Deleted by S.E.) to obtain information and intelligence on various on-going operations and investigations.

Since the informant didn’t speak English very well, was by no means considered fluent, often if not always, the agents took an interpreter, a translator, with them to these regular monthly meetings. This is where Amin and I came into the picture. For these sessions the agents would have either Amin or me accompany them. By sheer coincidence, I happened to recognize the man during the first meeting from a gathering I frequented. I knew where he lived, and I had his phone number.

Around the end of April, 2001, I was asked to accompany two special agents from the FBI-WFO, Tony and John, to a meeting arranged with this informant; we hooked up with him somewhere near the (Meeting Location Deleted by S.E.). The agents and I were working on a particular criminal investigation that was going to court in (Possible sensitive date deleted by S.E.), and the informant’s information played an extremely important role in building the case.

We met the informant in this park-like area and spent nearly an hour discussing the case, asking detailed questions, and of course, with me translating the communication which went back and forth. Once we were finished with the session and ready to head back to the WFO, the informant urged us to stay for a few minutes and listen to something very important and alarming he had recently received from his sources. We looked at one another and sat down on the bench; we were all ears.

The informant said:

‘Listen, I was recently contacted by two extremely reliable and long-term sources-neither one Iranian; one in Afghanistan; the other in Pakistan’s border region with Afghanistan. In the past, these guys had provided me with inside information and intelligence that was extremely hard to come by, considering the tightly-based networks and groups they were able to enter and penetrate. They notified me that an active mujahideen group led by Bin Laden had issued an order to attack certain targets in the United States, and were planning the attack as we spoke.’

Now the informant had our full attention; the agents seemed very alarmed, since their main unit of operation was under the WFO Counterterrorism division. They asked the guy to stop, asked him to repeat that again, and ordered me to take verbatim notes as I translated. They too took notes.

The informant continued:

‘According to my guys, Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this (I assumed he meant the CIA or the White House).’

Tony, one of the agents asked ‘did they say when? Did they give any specific dates? Did they say how they were going to use airplanes; bombs or high jacking?’

The informant paused for a second:

‘No specific dates; not any that they were aware of. However, they said the general timeframe was characterized as ‘very soon.’ They think within the next two or three months.’ He then added: ‘As far as how they are going to use the planes to attack; your guess is as good as mine. My bet, it will be bombs; planting bombs inside these planes, maybe the cargo, then have them blown up over the populated cities.’

The agents nodded and took extensive notes. I took my notes in Farsi; I usually did that, and later after returning to the office, sat down and translated them verbatim. We stood up and were ready to leave, when the informant urged us to report this immediately and act on it:

‘If I were you guys, I’d take this extremely seriously. If I had the same position I had in SAVAK, I’d put all my men on this around the clock. I can vouch for my sources; their reliability. Make sure you put this in the hands of the top guys in Counterterrorism.’

The agents nodded and thanked him for the information. We drove back in silence. After we parked the car, while walking to the elevators, the agents were discussing the best person, the top person; they should submit this warning to. They decided on Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Thomas Frields, who was in charge of the WFO Counterterrorism division and who used to lead the division that dealt with Iran’s Hostage Crisis in 1980s. I reminded them that although the informant was Iranian, his sources were not; and that they were in Pakistan and Afghanistan; not in Iran; Bin Laden was not Iranian but a Saudi. They acknowledged that, but made the point that Frields was in charge of the Counterterrorism unit in the WFO.

Once we got to the office, I went straight to my cubicle and began translating the entire conversation verbatim and typing it into a formal report. The agents went to their section and filled out the necessary 302 forms. These forms, the 302s, are forms used by agents to report information gathered from the Bureau’s assets and or informants. The agents, Tony and John, filled out two sets of 302 forms; one for the ongoing criminal case and the informants’ information related to that; the other, on the warning, with the initial code name ‘Kamikaze Pilots,’ as information related to Counterterrorism operations.

The agents called me up on my extension and asked me to escort them inside the language unit. I walked them over to my desk, where we sat, compared notes, and finalized and coordinated our report. They had me make several copies of the translation report for them to be submitted with their report. I took it upon myself to make a set of copies of their 302 forms for my own file; my own record. At the end of the day, around five o’clock, they submitted the 302 forms and my translation report. They submitted the warning report to SAC Frields; with a note, a yellow stick-up, on the top saying ‘VERY URGENT: Kamikaze Pilots’

Neither of us heard back from Frields or the Counterterrorism division. No one asked for any follow-ups or additional information. Two months went by. Around the end of June 2001, I accompanied the two agents to another meeting with the Iranian Informant. This time we met in (Location Details Deleted by S.E.).

After going over the target criminal investigation; now only …(Specific Date Deleted by S.E.), as we were ready to turn around and leave, he stopped us:

‘What did you do with the information I gave you two months ago? Did you report it to your bosses?’

The agents nodded. One of them said: ‘Yes; we sent it up. We submitted it to the top guy.’

The informant was animated now,

‘Well; are they going to do something about it? Because, three days ago I heard back from one of those two sources; in Pakistan. He swore the attack was on its way; any time now; a month or two max.’

Tony said: ‘I know; I hear what you are saying, man; but doing something about this won’t be up to us. Plus, we don’t have enough information to take any action here. We don’t know when, how, or exactly where. The only thing we have is: Mujahideen, Kamikaze Pilots, Bin Laden, five cities, and airplanes. That ain’t enough.’

The informant reasoned:

‘I’ve been thinking about this; trying to make more sense out of it myself. The source mumbled something about tall buildings. Maybe they will blow up the plane over some tall buildings; I don’t know. Maybe the FBI can get more specifics from the Pakistanis; ISI. Have they tried? After all they are your guys, and they already know all about this.’

The agents were getting exasperated and impatient, ‘We’ve got to go; we have a lot of work back there. We have done all we could. We reported it to the guy in charge; now, it is up to them.’

As we turned around and walked away, the informant yelled in Farsi:

‘Why don’t you discuss it with the CIA? They know. Tell the White House. Don’t let ‘them’ sit on this until it is too late…’

I asked Tony, ‘Maybe sharing this with other agencies is not a bad idea. What do you think?’

He rolled his eyes ‘not up to us Behrooz. As far as the White House goes, the HQ guys will include it in their briefings; I’m sure they’ve already done so. Frields is obligated to submit what he got, everything he gets under Counterterrorism, to the HQ guys in charge of Whitehouse National Security Briefings. He always does. So, the White House and other agencies have already heard about this. Let’s drop this man; will ya?’

That was the last time we ever discussed this case before the 9/11 attacks took place. The only other person I told this to and showed the 302 forms and the translation report, before September 11, was Amin here. Then, on that Tuesday morning on September 11 everything came back to me and hit me on the head like several tons of bricks.

That morning, we heard the news, and all of us ran out to the next unit to watch the CNN footage on the TV screens installed out there. As soon as I saw the planes hitting those buildings I said to myself: ‘Oh my God, oh dear God; we were warned about this; we were told about this; very specifically’ I almost fainted; I kept hearing the informant’s words; I kept hearing his last warnings begging us to do something fast. And we had done NOTHING. Now it was already way too late. I felt nauseous; I felt sick.

A few minutes later I saw one of the two agents; I started making my way into the crowd gathered in front of the TV screens, hundreds of people, and walked toward the agent. He spotted me before I got to him; we locked eyes; knowing eyes. He felt what I was feeling; he knew what I knew; he thought what I was thinking; we were responsible for this. Someone in the FBI would be hung for this.

When I got close to him I asked ‘what are we going to do? What should we do next?’ He shook his head and whispered: ‘I don’t know. I cannot even think straight right now. I don’t know Behrooz. We fucked this up; the Bureau fucked our country. Why?! Oh God; we let this happen.’ With that said he ran out of the room. I went back to check my drawer and make sure that I still had everything: the 302 forms, from both meetings, my translation reports; both of them. They were all there.

A few days later, when I got together with both agents and Amin to go over an assignment, I brought up the topic. They avoided eye contact with me. I asked the agents what they were going to do; if they’d already done something. At first they were evasive. Then, after I insisted, one of them, Tony, said: ‘Listen; Frields called us into his office and gave us an order; an absolute order.’ I asked them what the order was. He said ‘we never got any warnings. Those conversations never existed; it never happened; period. He said this is very sensitive…and that no one should ever mention a word about this case; period.’

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

A belated happy new year to all our readers and friends here at Boiling Frogs Post. As you can tell I am just coming up for air. The holiday season happens to be the busiest time for my part-time work which involves a retail business, and my full-time motherhood task which has gotten at least three-fold harder during this not-so-terrible-twos stage. You see I say harder, but I’ll never call it ‘terrible’ because despite the tasking aspect it still remains the best and most rewarding role I’ve ever had; ever. My daughter is now 2.5 years old, and I’m happy to report: she is outspoken, highly opinionated, and on her way to becoming a real activist. She is already stopping those engaged in littering in their tracks for an earful lecture, and orders them to stop, ‘Go home, time out, and take bath!’ I am sharing a few of her recent pictures here. Many of you know all about my ‘no venture into my private life’ over here at BFP…except for an occasional relevant experience(s), or, like these here and the ones from last year to mark a new year at Boiling Frogs Post. Again, Happy New Year.

For the past two months I’ve been collecting and saving lots of articles to share with you here at BFP. The collection kept getting larger, the list of links grew longer, and I kept falling behind and unable to post regular BFP Round Ups. Some of those articles were time sensitive so they got discarded as ‘stale and no longer relevant’. Some are still sitting on the list waiting for the addition of my comments and analyses. And here are a few important and interesting ones from the past few weeks without much need for added sound bites:

Obama’s Whistleblower-Hunt: Whistleblowers Long for Bush-Cheney Era Leniency?

You thought the Bush-Cheney administration was bad? Think again; especially if you happen to be a whistleblower. Despite its awful record, the current administration witch-hunt like pursuit of whistleblowers and truth-tellers has many whistleblowers and truth-telling advocates longing for the Bush era climate. After all, everything is relevant, right? There was the bad, now it is the worse, or probably worst ever. Despite all the threats and muscle-flexing not a single whistleblower, including myself, got arrested or even pursued criminally under the previous regime. With Obama the era of threats has changed into an era of Punishment-Imprisonment and in some cases even torture. Here is one of the latest:

Former CIA officer indicted for leaks to reporter 
Peter Haldis, RCFP

A former CIA officer was indicted last month for allegedly providing a New York Times reporter with classified information. He is the latest in a string of leakers prosecuted by the Obama administration.

Jeffrey Sterling, 43, of O’Fallon, Mo., was indicted on 10 counts, including six counts of unauthorized disclosure of national defense information and one count of obstruction of justice. He was arrested Thursday in St. Louis.Sterling was indicted Dec. 22, 2010, and the indictment was unsealed Thursday.

…

Sterling is the fifth leaker to be prosecuted by the Obama administration. The others include: former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake, who allegedly sent classified information to an unknown newspaper reporter; Stephen Kim, a former Department of State analyst who allegedly leaked an intelligence report to an unidentified reporter; Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army private alleged to have leaked classified information to Wikileaks; and Shamai Leibowitz, a former FBI linguist who was convicted in May 2010 of charges related to the leaking of classified information to an unidentified blogger and sentenced to 20 months in prison.

………………………………………………………………

 ‘Rent-A-Generals’ Consulting Firms: An Industry in Its Own

Last month I came across the following coverage at War Is Business by Corey Pein. This Monday Peter and I will be interviewing Mr. Pein, meanwhile if you haven’t seen this great website check it out now, and put it in your ‘Favorite’ list of websites. I am really looking forward to this interview, too many topics of interest to cover!

‘Rent-A-Generals’ & ‘the Militarization of Economy’ 
By Corey Pein, War Is Business

This man is William B Burdeshaw, a retired US Army Brigadier General and founder of what the Boston Globe, in its must-read investigation of rampant corruption in Pentagon procurement, calls “one of the oldest ‘rent-a-general’ consulting firms” in the country.

His company, Burdeshaw Associates Ltd, is essentially a fixer for corporations looking to land military contracts. The firm is apparently so good at this, its influential “associates”—mostly retired, high-ranking officers—can sell the Pentagon things it didn’t even know it needed.

Read Globe reporter Bryan Bender describe how Burdeshaw cleverly wrung $109 million from the Pentagon for the firm’s client, Northrop Grumman, which wanted to build a remote-controlled helicopter called the Fire Scout.

…

The Army wouldn’t comment. Northrop Grumman wouldn’t comment. Burdeshaw’s chief executive, retired Army General William Hartzog, wouldn’t comment. Bender did a remarkable job of putting this story together despite such obstacles.

Clearly, no one gained from this episode—except Northrop Grumman, the third-largest US military contractor, and Burdeshaw Associates. The firm’s eponym seems to be doing well for himself. Burdeshaw and his wife, Monica, own a massive $2 million home near the Potomac River in Maryland. Give the size of his firm, his personal wealth is likely many times that amount.

…

In its conclusion, Bender explains the growing demand for rent-a-generals as a consequence of “the increasing importance of the military to America’s industrial base.” Retired Army General and former Presidential candidate Wesley Clark calls it “the militarization of the economy.”

Too see what the militarization of the economy looks like, visit a discount grocer in any American city and count how many people pay with food stamps. Then ponder William Burdeshaw’s mansion.

Too see the effects of a simultaneous process—the commodification of the military—look no farther than Afghanistan, where contractors outnumber uniformed soldiers.

…

Read the rest of this well-done coverage here.

…………………………………………………………….

A Great Example of Intentionally Awful Journalism by New York Times … Again

The following story, titled ‘Propping Up a Drug Lord, Then Arresting Him’ by the New York Times is another perfect example of purposefully awful journalism. For some reason we get to see this trend ‘awfully’ a lot in Times’ coverage of Afghan Heroin related topics (which they rarely cover). When you are reading it think of a badly made B grade movie by a bunch of amateurs (but in this case switch the amateurs with pretenders); think about some of those home-made films where bits and pieces are copied and pasted into a hodgepodge of a documentary with no beginning (it starts in the middle omitting the intro/history) ending with a never-kept promise of ‘to be continued;’ think about a bunch of main actors being taken out with their empty spots still hanging in the picture like big gaping holes, and think about sci-fi elements such as real-life people mixed with fiction characters making it neither a documentary nor a fiction film. Okay?

Now, why am I covering this intentionally awful junk? 1- The topic itself is EXTREMELY important; 2- The main character is a crucial key to many censored facts regarding our ‘real’ activities and operations; 3- Turkey is mentioned is passing (must be a major unintended slip by the Times’ stenographers); 4- Our readers here know how to read in between the lineJ So here it is [Emphasis in Bold are mine]:

Propping Up a Drug Lord, Then Arresting Him
By James Risen, New York Times

When Hajji Juma Khan was arrested and transported to New York to face charges under a new American narco-terrorism law in 2008, federal prosecutors described him as perhaps the biggest and most dangerous drug lord in Afghanistan, a shadowy figure who had helped keep the Taliban in business with a steady stream of money and weapons.

But what the government did not say was that Mr. Juma Khan was also a longtime American informer, who provided information about the Taliban, Afghan corruption and other drug traffickers. Central Intelligence Agency officers and Drug Enforcement Administration agents relied on him as a valued source for years, even as he was building one of Afghanistan’s biggest drug operations after the United States-led invasion of the country, according to current and former American officials. Along the way, he was also paid a large amount of cash by the United States.

At the height of his power, Mr. Juma Khan was secretly flown to Washington for a series of clandestine meetings with C.I.A. and D.E.A. officials in 2006. Even then, the United States was receiving reports that he was on his way to becoming Afghanistan’s most important narcotics trafficker by taking over the drug operations of his rivals and paying off Taliban leaders and corrupt politicians in President Hamid Karzai’s government.

…

By 2004, Mr. Juma Khan had gained control over routes from southern Afghanistan to Pakistan’s Makran Coast, where heroin is loaded onto freighters for the trip to the Middle East, as well as overland routes through western Afghanistan to Iran and Turkey. To keep his routes open and the drugs flowing, he lavished bribes on all the warring factions, from the Taliban to the Pakistani intelligence service to the Karzai government, according to current and former American officials.

The scale of his drug organization grew to stunning levels, according to the federal indictment against him. It was in both the wholesale and the retail drug businesses, providing raw materials for other drug organizations while also processing finished drugs on its own.

…

While the C.I.A. wanted information about the Taliban, the drug agency had its own agenda for the Washington meetings — information about other Afghan traffickers Mr. Juma Khan worked with, as well as contacts on the supply lines through Turkey and Europe.

One reason the Americans could justify bringing Mr. Juma Khan to Washington was that they claimed to have no solid evidence that he was smuggling drugs into the United States, and there were no criminal charges pending against him in this country.

………………………………………………………………………

The following is a decent piece by Spiegel on the US courtship of Azerbaijan’s corrupt regime:

The US Befriends Azerbaijan’s Corrupt Elite

By Gregor Peter Schmitz, Spiegel

Azerbaijan is rife with corruption and comparisons to European feudalism in the Middle Ages are hardly a stretch. But with vast reserves of oil and natural gas at stake, the US is willing to risk the embarrassment that comes with courting the country.

…

Azerbaijan, which lies in the Caspian basin and has a population of 9 million, is one of the US’s strategic energy partners, despite being located within Russia’s sphere of influence. The country boasts proven energy reserves of roughly 7 billion barrels of oil and 1.3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Millions of barrels of these natural resources flow to the West each year via a pipeline connecting the Azerbaijani capital with Ceyhan, a Turkish port on the Mediterranean Sea.

…

The “Great Game” is what the 19th century battle between the British and the Russians over Central Asian influence was called. These days, the Americans are also on the frontlines of this battle — and the potential rewards are much larger. Unfortunately, as the State Department’s classified documents make clear, the price that American diplomats have to pay is also much greater.

Like the other oil-producing countries around the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan is an embarrassing partner to have. The country’s corrupt institutions are unable to deal with the oil boom and the billions of dollars it brings into the county, while the average annual growth rate of almost 15 percent is a much higher priority than enforcing and improving law and order. Independent media outlets are restricted, and dissidents are violently suppressed. Shortly before his death, Heydar Aliyev, the dictator who ruled Azerbaijan from 1993 to 2003, naturally handed over power to his son Ilham, who does things exactly the way his father did.

…

While a few Azerbaijani clans are getting richer and richer, thanks to all the dollars pouring into the country, the rest of the population is barely scraping by. Over 40 percent of the country’s inhabitants are living in poverty; the average monthly income is just €24. As Lala Shevkat, the leader of the Liberal Party of Azerbaijan, says: “Oil is our tragedy.”The Americans, however, have not let such problems frighten them away. On the contrary, they are even pushing for greater cooperation on security. Following the visit of an American envoy to Baku, one diplomat noted with satisfaction that he “underscored to President Aliyev the value that the US government attached to the relationship with Azerbaijan.”

…

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The following two pieces are related to our continuing ‘Police State’ series:

Terrorist watch list: One tip now enough to put name in database, officials say
By Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post

A year after a Nigerian man allegedly tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, officials say they have made it easier to add individuals’ names to a terrorist watch list and improved the government’s ability to thwart an attack in the United States.

The failure to put Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on the watch list last year renewed concerns that the government’s system to screen out potential terrorists was flawed. Even though Abdulmutallab’s father had told U.S. officials of his son’s radicalization in Yemen, government rules dictated that a single-source tip was insufficient to include a person’s name on the watch list.

Since then, senior counterterrorism officials say they have altered their criteria so that a single-source tip, as long as it is deemed credible, can lead to a name being placed on the watch list.

…

But civil liberties groups argue that the government’s new criteria, which went into effect over the summer, have made it even more likely that individuals who pose no threat will be swept up in the nation’s security apparatus, leading to potential violations of their privacy and making it difficult for them to travel.

“They are secret lists with no way for people to petition to get off or even to know if they’re on,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Officials insist they have been vigilant about keeping law-abiding people off the master list. The new criteria have led to only modest growth in the list, which stands at 440,000 people, about 5 percent larger than last year. The vast majority are non-U.S. citizens.

…

A Nation of Paranoids?

Florida Professor Arrested for Having a “Suspicious” Bagel on a Plane
By Todd Wright, NBC-Miami

A Florida professor was arrested and removed from a plane Monday after his fellow passengers alerted crew members they thought he had a suspicious package in the overhead compartment.

That “suspicious package” turned out to be keys, a bagel with cream cheese and a hat.

Ognjen Milatovic, 35, was flying from Boston to Washington D.C. on US Airways when he was escorted off the plane for disorderly conduct following the incident.

Monday’s incident is another example of other passengers essentially becoming the authority on terrorist activity on planes.

…

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Last week John Young’s information site Cryptome.Org began publishing documents related to the interviews conducted by the 9/11 Commission which were released for the first time. On January 3, Cryptome posted the 9/11 Commission’s report on my interview (the infamous Sibel Edmonds Case), and aptly titled this particular file as “Sibel Edmonds Censored Yet Again.” Once you read the PDF document you’ll quickly see the reason for Cryptome’s appropriate label. The entire report, by that I mean the entire report, is blacked out (actually, whited-out;-). It took me less than one minute to scan the entire document; basically, scrolling down the white pages-one white page after another. Initially, I was not a bit surprised. Hey, I’ve been declared the most gagged and classified person in US history, after all- State Secrets Privilege invocation twice, gagging the entire Congress for the first (and only) time in US history, hundreds of pages of blacked out DOJ-IG report… So, as I said, I didn’t find it a bit surprising.  However, after the minute it took to go over these blank pages, I started clicking and scanning all the other files (interviews by the 9/11 Commission), and that’s where I was truly surprised:

Despite some redactions here and there, and in a few cases fairly extensive redaction, there were no interviews where the entire interview (and the report on the interview) was blacked out in its entirety. Mine was the only one privileged and honored to such degree! Why? I mean, come on, we are talking about interviews with: FBI Special Agent in Charge on Counterterrorism, CIA Officers with Directorate of Intelligence with a Specific Focus on Drugs & Thugs, The Chairman of National Intelligence Council, NSA Chief of Counterintelligence & SIGNIT Support, Senior CIA Analysts…Yet, none of these interviews was redacted in its entirety. None. Please be my guest and make your own comparison; My 9/11 Commission interview document here, and the rest, here, here, here, here, here…You can check out the rest published by Cryptome here, and if you want more here for thousands of them.

I e-mailed Mr. Young to get his opinion and ask whether he had noticed the same interesting phenomena. He confirmed my observation and we shared the exact same conclusion: This particular interview was ‘exceptionally’ redacted.

Next, I started all over again, and this time I checked for the location of these interviews conducted by the 9/11 Commission. Why? Because after checking with the DOJ/FBI/State Department/DOD, the 9/11 Commissioners insisted that my interview to be conducted in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). I was stuck inside one of these almost airless highly claustrophobic dungeons for over three hours for my interview. I was told by the commission staff that this was due to the ‘extreme secret and sensitive nature of Ms. Edmonds’ information.’ Yet, none of the high-level counterterrorism officials, CIA operatives and agents, senior analysts…(at least all the ones I’ve scanned so far) were required to give their interviews inside a SCIF, or even a cleared room (they have specialists come and declare the room/facility clear & free of bugs). When you go to my interview document (here), look at the top of the page, find ‘location’ and see what it says. For mine it says: GSA SCIF. Now, if you were to go to all the other documents and check the interviewees’ location for the  interview, you’ll see No SCIF, and locations like: Commission’s K Street Office (regular meeting room), or, regular offices or meeting rooms within various government agencies & HQs.

Another interesting point that came to me later had to do with the length of the Commission’s redacted interview with me. I know I was in there for over three hours, and at the top of the report they actually confirm that. I know I didn’t waste time talking about the employment and whistle blowing aspects of my case, instead I asked them to get that info from the IG or various congressional offices. I spent over three hours talking, answering questions, and writing for the 9/11 Commission investigators, with no break, no interruptions, and not even a pause for side conversations. I have transcribed interviews, I have typed many pages of phone/recorded conversations at the FBI while a translator,  I have prepared many reports based on interviews, and I know that there is no way in this world you can transcribe or report on three hours of nonstop interview, especially mine, in less than 10-12 pages (single spaced!). Yet, the total number of redacted pages released by the 9/11 Commission totals about 5 pages. What else did they do with my interview besides redacting? This is what I call ‘sending it to a never-to-be retrieved Black Hole.’

I wonder what the US media has to say on this; especially the ones who’ve done their share of censoring and redacting on this particular case. Any ideas?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

In this urgent message delivered by ultra snail method of delivery due to restrictions placed upon our communication means (warrantless mass surveillance by our government targeting our telephone, text messages, e-mail, fax, and internet accessibility) we, American citizens, hereby urgently request that the recipients on the other side of the Atlantic and Pacific add our desperately repressed nation to their list of qualified political refugee nations and or raise their existing annual quota for US political refugees. We not only meet but surpass the United Nations 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees on the grounds of political opinion and membership and or participation in any particular social group or social activities.

We Americans, every single one of us, are treated as potential terrorists, are considered guilty with no way to prove otherwise. We all are subjected to round the clock surveillance (phone, e-mail, fax, text, internet accessibility; with internet activities soon to be monitored and restricted), and degrading physical probing-groping searches as mandatory requirements for our travel.

We United States Citizens have been deprived of expressing collective dissent even through the most peaceful means and pacifist manner. Our participation or membership in social groups or gathering that challenge illegal wars or anti humanitarian practices land us on our government’s never-defined ‘enemy & terrorist’ list, with consequences ranging from being prohibited from traveling by air, to having our homes raided and families intimidated by armed government militia, to being persecuted and thrown before a federal grand jury to face possible incarceration for our beliefs.

We now face prosecution, persecution , and even possible assassination for engaging in certain journalistic or Good Samaritan reporting of wrong-unethical-even illegal activities by those trusted with our nation’s health, wealth, and security. This situation now is being extended to those of us who may have read or disseminated information originally gathered and distributed by others. Today our whistleblowers are thrown behind bars, while our criminals who engage in robbing our taxpayers of billions of dollars, or, those who engage in torture and murder games are highly protected and handsomely awarded by our rulers.

We urge you to remember the Stasi and the suffocating repression suffered by the East Germans, and then, go ahead and multiply that by a four digit number of your choice. Any number will do, that is, as long as it has four digits. Our technology-enabled Stasis can tap and record hundreds of millions of communications. Our rulers’ mega corporate collaborators can pull the plug on hundreds of thousands of us with no recourse available or even imaginable. On top of all that, unlike those lucky East German-ers we don’t have a meager little wall to overcome, nor do we have a viable, trust-worthy, or sovereign enough neighbor nation next door to escape to.  Our frigid northern neighbor is as keen on outlaw style assassination as our ruthless rulers. As for our southern neighbor? First we’d have to make it to the other side of the border by surviving armed citizen-soldiers who can easily mistake those of us with dark hair for Mexicans to be hunted. Next, we have to survive the Mexican drug gang-police combination who may easily perceive us as competitors in their Narc-Territory. As you can see, the chances of our survival there are slim to none.

We implore you to grant us Americans ‘High Priority Political Asylum’ Status. At least consider a swapping arrangement whereby your high-level criminals, con artists, professional swindlers, and or psychotic serial torturers are sent here where they can find an agreeable working-practicing environment and unlimited government protection and rewards, and in exchange those of us in search of a reasonable degree of freedom and justice would be given asylum in your nations.

Urgently Awaiting Your Action & Assistance,

We the Freedom-Seeking Americans

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Here are a few updates for those of you who may have been wondering about the continuity of my interest in our nation’s police state status. I may be too busy to write my usual ten-page plus editorials on this topic, but never too busy to monitor the issue; never! It is about me, my daughter, you, your friends, basically, this is about all of us.

I am going to start this update with something positive. The following ‘something’ shows that we indeed can take a stand, however little, and challenge what’s being forced upon us in the game of fear-mongering and in the name of security. Here is a group of ‘true’ Americans who have enough patriotism and real backbone to stand up for our liberties and dignities. I am going to post their entire letter instead of a couple of paragraphs. It deserves to be published and shown in its entirety, so I hope I won’t be frowned upon or penalized for violating the quote limitation…

Letter: Indignities at the Airports

As professional pilots, some colleagues and I recently issued a statement to our airline. We voiced our rejection of the policy changes being enacted by the Transportation Security Administration at airport security checkpoints across the country, including Memphis International (Sept. 18 article, “Virtual strip search / Random full-body scans launched at Memphis airport”).

We do not consent to the indignity of virtual strip searches as a matter of course in performing the duties of our profession. Neither can we conscientiously accept being physically frisked by federal agents every day as a reasonable alternative.

Obviously, our work places us inside the flight deck door by necessity. We wouldn’t have to smuggle a weapon into the airport to take control of an aircraft. After running the gantlet of required background checks, security training and screening procedures, it’s just plain silly to confiscate pilots’ pocket knives and corkscrews before we enter the cockpit. In short, here’s hoping the crew for your next flight is on the home team.

But that’s not even the point.

We are appalled that any citizen who is not under arrest, has made no threats, nor raised any suspicion of terrorism or other malice should be made to submit to either of these “options” in order to move about within his or her own national borders.

Federal airport security guards are often unskilled, entry-level responders to help-wanted ads affixed to pizza boxes. Perhaps novice agents lack the perspective to grasp the full implications of their work. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. But please don’t show them your naked body. Don’t let these strangers put their hands on you or your children. Their abuse protects no one. No, the good citizens of a free society must resist such authoritarian overtures at least as much as any foreign threat.

I offer my condolences if your flight should be delayed or canceled because the TSA won’t let us in the door. But I suggest that your freedom is more important. At any rate, ours certainly is.

Michael Roberts

Memphis

Mr. Roberts, kudos to you and your colleagues. You have my respect and support.

…………………………………………………………………

Now here are three related articles showing how our guys at the bureau aren’t able to find real criminal or terrorism related cases to chase and investigate. They are bored, and as we all know boredom can lead to all sorts of nefarious deeds and activities. On one hand we are constantly reminded of Al-Qaeda and related boogieman’s plans to destroy us here in the States, thus the urgency to give up all our rights, liberties and dignities. Yet, on the other hand, here is our nation’s federal police agency bored out of its mind going around and harassing American citizens for exercising their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I guess they are contradicting their bosses! Hmmm…or maybe they are keeping J. Edgar Hoover’s spirit alive?!

FBI Files on Investigations of Iowa City Peace Activists Made Public

David Goodner, a former member of the University of Iowa’s Antiwar Committee, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for files associated with an FBI surveillance of groups in Iowa City prior to the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. What he discovered was the investigation was far more extensive than previously known. Now, Goodner has turned over the files he received from the FBI exclusively to The Iowa Independent for publication.

As the documents show, the investigation into activities of peace groups in Iowa City involved staking out homes, secretly photographing and video taping members, digging through garbage and even planting a mole to spy on the peace activists up close.  Known as the Wild Rose Rebellion, the protesters were described by the FBI as an “anarchist collective.” In an interview with The Des Moines Register, the FBI defended its actions.

Weysan Dun, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Omaha field office, which oversees Iowa and Nebraska, said in a statement that every investigative technique that was employed was authorized under guidelines established by the U.S. attorney general “and was deemed necessary to resolve the allegations.” …

Dun said the Iowa City investigation was warranted because of allegations that certain people were possibly going to engage in criminal activities to disrupt the national conventions of one or both major political parties.

The group’s plans were to help organize nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, such as street blockades, at the 2008 RNC convention. In an interview Monday with progressive radio host Ed Fallon, Goodner said the FBI investigation didn’t make sense.

…

And here is the second related article:

Midlands FBI spying under scrutiny

In August 2003, two FBI agents watched over an Omaha rally organized by peace activist Frank Cordaro, a former Catholic priest.The agents observed no criminal activity at the rally but still sent notes on those in attendance to local military and law enforcement officials so they could plan security measures for a conference on U.S. nuclear policy at Offutt Air Force Base, according to a Justice Department report.

Also, FBI files reveal that agents, working under the direction of the bureau’s Omaha field office, secretly monitored the activities of Iowa City protest groups before the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

“I learned early in my peace and justice career to assume the government knows what’s going on,” said Cordaro, who has spent a total of about five years in jail for trespassing on Offutt property. When the FBI was monitoring him, Cordaro was planning a protest against nuclear weapons at the Offutt conference.

Now the FBI, including its Omaha office, is under intense scrutiny for investigations that revive memories of the bureau’s Vietnam-era intrigue.

Unsealed agency documents and a report from the Justice Department detail the FBI’s broad investigations of protest groups in Nebraska, Iowa and other parts of the country based on its authority to look into allegations and threats of domestic and international terrorism.

“In several cases there was little indication of any possible federal crimes,” Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in his report, which detailed similar investigations the agency conducted around the country. “In some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘Acts of Terrorism’ classification.”

A domestic terrorism designation can have a large impact, the inspector general said, because people who are subjects of such probes are normally placed on watch lists and their travels and interactions with law enforcement may be tracked.

The FBI investigated whether the Iowa activists were part of a national network of radicals who wanted to disrupt the GOP convention in Minnesota and the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. The records show that the investigation lasted from roughly March to December in 2008.

During that time, authorities went through activists’ garbage and their cell phone and motor vehicle records.

…

Okay, you can read the rest here.

And finally, here is a hard-hitting recent news article for those who don’t consider the two above alarm-worthy:

FBI Raids: An End to ‘Covert’ Spying on Antiwar Groups?

Earlier this week the Justice Department revealed that the FBI had been using false claims of “counter-terror” operations to justify covert spying operations against antiwar groups in Pittsburgh and elsewhere across the country. As officials downplayed the report the matter seemed to be just another in a growing list of Bush era abuses of power, about which little is ever said.

Then this morning FBI agents and SWAT teams started kicking doors in across Minneapolis, across Chicago, across the rest of America. The target: antiwar activists of various stripes, but particularly those likely to be involved in antiwar protests at the next Democratic National Convention.

It seems the era of “covert” FBI spying has come to an end, and not in the good way like you’d hope. Rather it seems to have moved with surprising alacrity from behind the shadows and become an overt program of intimidation and surveillance of what is left of America’s antiwar movement.

Though the Justice Department seemed quite fine with shrugging off photographing protesters and infiltrating organizations, it seems that kicking doors in nationwide is something else entirely, and with the same tired “counter-terror” excuse being used the questions about the increasingly shameless tactics will only grow.

As always many thanks to AntiWar.Com for keeping track of all this; not on page B27, but on its front page and center!

………………………………………………………………………………

Let’s look at our government’s progress in recreating 1984 and putting in real life context:

Doc of the Day: Feds’ Guide To Snitching on Your Terrorist Neighbor

That dude next door, man — I used to think he was an OK guy, but now all the bags of fertilizer from Home Depot piled up in his garage are starting to worry me. And what’s with that beard? He’s not a — you don’t think –

For today’s Doc of the Day, here’s a handy pamphlet prepared by federal law enforcement to help you navigate the uncertainties of an age of homegrown terrorism, helpfully illustrated with pictures of New Mexico-born extremist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki and New York food-cart guy/sleeper agent Najibullah Zazi.

Be on the lookout, warn the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center, for such “indicators of possible terrorist activity” as “behavior that could indicate participation in surveillance of potential targets,” “travel or interest in traveling overseas to attend violent extremist institutions or paramilitary camps,” or checking out “websites and reading materials that advocate violence and then initiating action in support of this activity.” See something? Say something!

……………………………………………………………..

The following related piece was put together nicely by Jason Ditz at AntiWar.

US Officials Renew Focus on ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

A number of top officials in the Obama Administration testified before Congress today to warn of the growing risk of “homegrown terrorists,” suggesting that al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda styled groups are being increasingly successful in recruiting Americans. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I – CT) termed the number of Americans turned militants “astoundingly high” while FBI Director Robert Mueller warned of “domestic radicalization” become more and more pronounced.

The value of Americans being able to circumvent security measures is clear for the militant groups, and the value of scaring people about them is clear as officials try to enact ever more draconian measures.

But one thing is always left unspoken in this testimony, and that is the fact that the vast majority of Americans ten years ago hadn’t even heard of al-Qaeda, let alone considered joining them. After nine years of war and no end in sight, harsh security measures and an increasingly militarized society, Americans are increasingly discontented, and the ability to recruit them has risen as a result. In this regard the “homegrown terrorists” are one of the most pure forms of blowback in the war, yet one of the least considered.

……………………………………………………………………………………

You know how they started those airport screeners, the infamous TSA abusers, with uniforms, then, took them one level higher by giving them police-like badges, and then after that how they handed them weapons to make these low-level, mostly uneducated and untrained, and extremely rude and unprofessional guys more powerful and ferocious, thus far more abusive? Right, so you know what I’m talking about   Well, here is the recent promotion, increased power status, granted to this fumbling mumbling abusive illiterate bunch:

10,000 TSA employees get secret clearances

Transportation security chief gives 10,000 employees access to secret intelligence information

The new head of the Transportation Security Administration say he’s giving 10,000 of the agency’s employees access to secret intelligence information to better enable them to detect threats and stop terrorists.

John Pistole (PIH’-stohl) told an aviation luncheon that he views TSA as a counterterrorism agency. He said his goal is to get the latest intelligence to all employees who have what he called an “action need” to “inform their judgment and decision-making.” Pistole is a former deputy FBI director who was confirmed by the Senate as TSA administrator in June. He said he begins each day with an intelligence briefing.

…

So now you know. I’m reading, listening, and watching the latest and not the greatest developments on the police state front. And, once in a while I even sit down in front of my PC in the wee hours at night and share some of these with my irate minority friends. Now its your turn. Please bring in and share with us your latest on the police state front.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Professor Francis Boyle discusses the October 2001 anthrax attack, the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle, and assesses the case based on his years of expertise with
America’s bio-weapons programs, and as an expert who was responsible for drafting the
Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. He discusses possible motivations behind the anthrax attacks, including those held by criminal elements within the US government to foment a police state, and the investigation that never was. Professor Boyle talks about Israel war crimes as crimes against humanity, and more.

Francis Boyle is a human rights lawyer and professor of law at the University of Illinois. As an internationally recognized expert, Professor Boyle serves as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. He is the author of several books, including The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence published by Clarity Press. Click here for a more detailed bio.

Here is our guest Professor Francis Boyle unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Coleen Rowley shares with us her views on the latest spectacle surrounding the Christmas Day foiled terrorist attempt, and how it reflects on policies that were implemented after 9/11. She provides us with insight into the pretend investigations carried out by the 9/11 Commission, and how they conducted many of their interviews of FBI witnesses and experts inside the FBI HQ and offices. Ms. Rowley talks about the absence of real investigations and accountability in almost any government related wrong doing and issues, our shameful treatment of inmates in Guantanamo detention center, the alarming desensitization of our people bolstered by the culprit mainstream media, and much more.

Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She came to national attention in June 2002, when she testified before Congress about serious lapses before 9/11 that helped account for the failure to prevent the attacks. She now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and on balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation.