Author: Bush Nominee Helped Mask FBI's Pre-9/11 Failures, Hid al Qaeda's Infiltration of US Intel

[Hissyspit]

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Author_Bush_nominee_helped_mask_FBIs_0925.html

Author: Bush nominee helped mask FBI's pre-9/11 failures and kept al Qaeda's infiltration of US intelligence from view
Peter Lance
Published: Tuesday September 25, 2007

This is the first of two op/ed exposes by Peter Lance, the best-selling author of Triple Cross, which will be released by HarperCollins in a new edition next month.

In the coverage of Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush's nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales, the line in his resume that has resonated the most with the media is his experience presiding over the 1995 terrorism trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.

The blind Sheikh, a top al Qaeda confederate who was cited in the infamous Crawford Texas PDB just weeks before 9/11, was convicted with nine others in the so-called "Day of Terror Plot" to blow up New York's bridges and tunnels, the U.N. and the FBI's New York office.

Citing the trial in a Sept. 20 New York Times piece that lionized the ex-judge, reporter Adam Liptak described how Mukasey, with "a few terse, stern and prescient remarks," sentenced the blind sheik to life in prison:

"Judge Mukasey said he feared the plot could have produced devastation on 'a scale unknown in this country since the Civil War' that would make the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which had left six people dead, 'almost insignificant by comparison.'"

Liptak was correct in citing the 1993 Twin Towers bombing in his story, but he failed to mention that the "Day of Terror" trial was really a desperate attempt by the FBI's New York office and prosecutors for the Southern District of New York (Mukasey's old office) to mop up after their failure to stop the blind Sheikh's "jihad army" prior to its first two attacks on U.S. soil: the murder of Rabbi Meier Kahane in 1990 and the Trade Center bombing on Feb. 26, 1993.

Worse, during the 1995 trial, Judge Mukasey helped bury the significance of Ali A, Mohamed, a shadowy figure who was working at the time for both Osama bin Laden and the FBI.

If Mohamed had been called to the stand and cross-examined in open court, defense lawyers could have ripped open the scandal of how the FBI failed to stop the first Trade Center attack. More important, they could have exposed the depth and breadth of al Qaeda's shocking plan to attack America, six years before 9/11.

Al Qaeda's master spy

An ex-Egyptian Army intelligence officer, Mohamed succeeded in infiltrating the CIA in 1984, the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg from 1987-89 and the FBI itself -- where he served as an informant on the West Coast from 1992.

MORE

Tomorrow in part two of Peter Lance's RAW STORY exclusive, he'll describe how Judge Mukasey's decision not to call Ali Mohamed at the "Day of Terror" trial kept the media and the public in the dark on why the FBI failed to stop the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. For more detail, read Triple Cross.

More information on Peter Lance's investigations can be found at his website.

[redqueen]

1. Thank goodness for The Raw Story

Maybe we'll see this stuff later in one of the corporowhore media outlets, now that they've been scooped again.

[JDPriestly]

2. Hmmm!!! Fitzgerald was part of the cover-up.

It's the story of how New York prosecutors Andrew McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald (later CIA leak Special Prosecutor) went out of their way to keep Ali Mohamed out of the "Day of Terror" trial.

Why would they do that? Because Mohamed had penetrated three of the Big Five intelligence agencies, and defense attorneys like Roger L. Stavis believe that once he was on the stand, under oath, the truth would have come out.

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Author_Bush_nominee_helped_mask_FBIs_0925.html

What does this suggest about Fitzgerald's integrity as a prosecutor? Did he also protect someone or something in the Plame trial?

Sounds like the prosecution in this case was less than thorough and limited to protect the reputation of the FBI and other agencies involved. What other purpose might there have been for omitting the testimony of Mohamed?

[leveymg]

6. Fitzgerald has been part of every major terrorism trial since '94

He's very good at his job, which is to conduct successful prosecutions with a minimum of disclosure of information about classified programs. You can call that a cover-up, if you like, (which it is), but someone has to carry out that role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald

In 1994, Fitzgerald became the prosecutor in the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others charged in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.<5>

In 1996, Fitzgerald became the National Security Coordinator for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. There, he served on a team of prosecutors investigating Osama bin Laden.<6> He also served as chief counsel in prosecutions related to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

On September 1, 2001, Fitzgerald was nominated for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), a Republican from Illinois. On October 24, 2001, the nomination was confirmed by the Senate.

[JDPriestly]

12. But did it cover up a conspiracy in the Plame trial?

Did Fitzgerald protect guilty individuals in order to whitewash wrongdoing in high places in the government? I don't know. I am really asking that question. The problem with a prosecutor "conduct successful prosecutions with a minimum of disclosure" is that the prosecutor is making value judgments, here about what aspects of a classified program have to be kept secret. Our Constitution promises a public trial. In the case of Scooter Libby, was he part of a larger conspiracy? Who has the right to prevent the jury from knowing the whole story? Who has the right to prevent the jury from knowing all the facts? The prosecutor? Who has the right to make the decision that hiding certain facts is in the public interest? In the Plame case, it may be that facts were hidden in order to cover up wrongdoing by high government officials. Who has the right to make decisions about what should be covered up? I would say that justice demands that all facts be told. Evidence should be admitted as long as it is relevant and reasonably reliable. The evidence rules insure the relevance and reliability of the evidence and to protect the rights of the accused. The evidence rules are not intended to protect important people or government agencies.

[leveymg]

17. There's a balancing test for disclosure of classified information

Gov't officials have no particular immunity from criminal prosecution just because they manage clasified programs. Similarly, unless one accepts the Unitary Executive argument, the President, VP, and Cabinet members also enjoy only qualified immunity for official acts -- only Judges and Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the decisions they make.

Many of us who closely followed the testimony and disclosures in the Plame case came away convinced that Fitzgerald had made a prima facie case against Cheney for his role as the leading conspirator in the outing of Valerie Plame. However, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) places extraordinarily high evidentiary demands to obtain a conviction. It was pretty clear that Cheney and his cabal had structured the crime so as to avoid being prosecuted under that statute. I believe that's the primary reason Fitzgerald didn't indict Cheney. Nonetheless, Fitz did get a rich and convincing volume of facts on the public record about how the Vice President conspired to destroy Mrs. Wilson, in the process undoing the work of the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division.

We weren't shown all the evidence, but we were shown enough for Congress to develop charges in bills of Impeachment against Cheney and Bush. That Congress has failed to do that isn't Mr. Fitzgerald's fault.

Perhaps we need an independent Prosecutor General, as has been created in some countries, whose job it is to investigate and charge government officials.

[formercia]

11. The FBI has always been Narcissistic about it's public image.

The facts show a much darker side to the Bureau.

[AuntPatsy]

15. I always suspected something not quite right with that whole little drama being

played out, they got a patsy in order to achieve the anger radiating from the citiens and the patsy walked clean and free as a bird...

I never did feel like justice was ever served.

[Hissyspit]

3. .

[leveymg]

4. Sgnt. Mohamed was a CIA double-agent since '84 who was a primary cut-out for

the long-standing relationship between al-Qaeda and the Agency. He, like UBL, ultimately proved unreliable.


Mohamed, like UBL, worked for the CIA in the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and after that in the Balkins. He was a primary trainer of al-Qaeda operatives brought into the U.S. for training in the late 1980s and early 1990s. His nom d'guerre was Abu Mohamed al Ameriki. He was videotaped by the FBI training several of the '93 WTC bombers, but curiously was allowed to continue operating even after the rest were arrested and tried in '94-95.

He wasn't arrested until September, 1998, following the bombings of US Embassies in East Africa, an AQ operation in which he was also involved for two years. Again, he was monitored by the FBI and the CIA as he worked up the plans with Ayman al-Hage. During this time, he also acted as primary conduit to UBLs Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was in the process of establishing al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States and other western countries.


Through Mohamed, and other double-agents, the CIA and DIA carried out an illegal, warrantless domestic surveillance operation inside the U.S.

After Bush-Cheney came to power, surveillance over the AQ network inside the U.S. was largely closed down by Presidential Order. But, curiously, the AQ sleeper cells were left in place until 9/11. With that, Bush and Cheney hit the trifecta

[hughee99]

7. Interesting...

So the Clinton Administration let him go after the first WTC bombing and was carrying out illegal warrantless domestic surveillance operations in the US. What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

I think those will be the repuke talking points from this story, and the story will probably die quickly.

[leveymg]

9. The facts are open to alternative interpretation. 9/11 happened under Bush's watch.

Yes, domestic surveillance of AQ inside the US was ongoing during the second Clinton Administration. There's no question that there were DIA/NSA warrantless programs, e.g., Able Danger, that operated through CENTCOM (which also employed Sgnt. Mohamed). In the months prior to 9/11, this program was shut down by Rummy's Deputy Undersecretary for Intelligence, Steve Cambone, after Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta, the Flt. 77 hijackers, and several other members of the "Brooklyn Cell". See, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

There's also no question that Cofer Black, who headed the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center from 1998 through 9/11, was Chief of Station in Khartoum at the same time that UBL made his base of operations there. Black admits to at least one meeting/confrontation with Osama prior to UBLs departure to Afghanistan. Under Tenet and Black's command, in January 2000, the CIA monitored an AQ planning summit in Kuala Lumpur at which 9/11 and the USS Cole attack were mapped out. Among the attendees were Atta's roommate and the Flt. 77 hijackers, who were trailed to Bangkok following the summit, entering the US on January 15, 2000. Cofer Black claims the CTC simply dropped the ball in notifying the FBI about the entry. The FBI then shut down CATCHERS MITT, which had been the Bureau's AQ surveillance operation. Whatever happened, the FBI didn't seek a warrant to surveil the pair. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/105117/571

The problem wasn't so much the fact of surveillance of AQ inside the US, it was that it was cut back after Bush took office, and virtually shut down during the summer of 2001 after Bush returned from the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, safely installed in the Crawford bunker. The Administration simply decided to do nothing about the warnings until after the roll-out of its own brand, spanking new counter-terrorism program. That roll-out was to happen following the Deputies Meeting scehduled for September 12, 2001. http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-575.html

[hughee99]

13. All interesting stuff...

but as I read it, the article is an obvious hit piece trying to show Mukasey as some integral cog in the failures that lead to 9/11.

"If Mohamed had been called to the stand and cross-examined in open court, defense lawyers could have ripped open the scandal of how the FBI failed to stop the first Trade Center attack. More important, they could have exposed the depth and breadth of al Qaeda's shocking plan to attack America, six years before 9/11."

Mukasey didn't prevent Sgnt. Mohamed from testifying, he just gave shitty jury instructions that MAY have resulted in an miscarriage of justice in this trial. The article doesn't really say that Mukasey had the power to compel Sgnt. Mohamed's appearance, just that he didn't give good jury instructions. In either case, it also says that a cross-examination would have exposed all sorts of shit. This guy Sgnt. Mohamed was being protected by the feds from F'ing terrorism charges, but I'm supposed to believe that if he took the stand, he would have told the truth and prevented 9/11 because he's afraid of perjury charges? Give me a break.

In the end, my point is this... If you're going to make a big issue out of someone's tangential involvement with terrorism related issues, don't be surprised when the repukes start leveling equally weak accusations against our candidates and nominees.

There's got to be dozens of reasons not to like Mukasey, I'd just like to see democrats use a better one to fight his nomination.

[leveymg]

20. I agree with part of your argument.

The decision to keep Mohamed off the stand wasn't the Judge's, it was the prosecution's. I think it's pretty obvious why Mary Jo White and Fitzgerald didn't compel live testimony from that witness. That might well have revealed the details of how the CIA uses double-agents to pentrate and, to some degree, lead terrorist groups. One can make a judgment about the wisdom of the Intelligence Community running double-agents and agents provocateur inside terrorist groups, but it was and remains the way counter-terrorism operations are run.

Why wasn't Sgn't Mohamed called? Answer: to protect "intelligence sources and methods" from disclosure, and that imperative is written into the Charter of the Central Intelligence Agency. The decision to roll-up known threats has to weighed against the value keeping assets in place collecting information. The cost of failures in judgment in CT operations can be extremely high, and command and control over al-Qaeda cells on 9/11 was criminally negligent. Manifestly criminal, as Bush's decision to ignore profesisonal advise to order the roll-up of al-Qaeda cells was made on political criteria. The lies told by the Administration during the cover-up Bush's failure of judgment are yet another set of crimes that need to be prosecuted.

[hughee99]

22. I agree with the what you say...

There are a lot of people doing ethically questionable to downright criminal things here. It just seems like a stretch to imply that Mukasey had any real role in any of this at least based on the evidence that the article presents. Admittedly, I'll be disappointed if any of our Dems say that their opposition to Mukasey is specifically because of this (I'd prefer them to oppose him for valid reasons).

[JDPriestly]

14. This guy became a double agent during the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

He was their protege. This is primarily their problem. I wonder if this is the same guy that was involved somehow with receiving money from the Saudi Arabian ambassador's wife.

[hughee99]

18. Mohamed is a bad guy and a double agent,

but I don't see any good "dirt" on Mukasey here, and it's certainly hyperbole to suggest that had Mukasey acted differently, 9/11 would have been prevented and/or Al Queda would have been exposed.

[JDPriestly]

23. I guess the criticism is about evidentiary decisions. I'm reading

between the lines. It isn't really clear.

[leveymg]

21. I believe that was Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, the Flt. 77 hijackers.

[JackRiddler]

5. Always good to spread, but please...

Lance's attempt to show Ali Mohamed as an Al Qaeda infiltrator is ludicrous. If so, why was this alleged mastermind of the 1998 embassy bombings allowed a witness protection deal by the U.S. authorities?

Ali Mohamed was a high-level U.S. infiltrator into Al Qaeda. His example demonstrates that Islamist terrorism is a steered phenomenon.

[KittyWampus]

8. somehow this seems a bit sensational. Lots of underlying facts, I'm sure. But somehow

the info doesn't quite add up. Maybe in the next article.

[leveymg]

10. You have good instincts. There's a hit piece coming that tries to

link Ambassador Wilson to the outing of his wife, Valerie Plame. As it was described to me, that piece also contains some details that most of the general public hasn't seen, but it also doesn't quite add up.

Stay tuned.

Cheney's last ditch counter-offensive.

[lateo]

16. Wasn't there a congressman that recommended him?

I seem to recall hearing some Congressman staying this is a good choice because it is one of the people they recommended to Bush.

[bobthedrummer]

19. Senator Russ Feingold, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is

very aware of the background of Mukasey and made an announcement this morning about the concerns that wiil be looked into by the Committee.

Not that anyone's "concerns" has stopped the fascism of this criminal administration...

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

[DemReadingDU]

24. morning kick

[bobthedrummer]

25. .

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST