IRAQ NEWS, MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1999
I. WILLIAM COHEN, THE CBW TERRORISM DANGER, WASH POST, JUL 26
II. RED CROSS, EMBARGO HURTS IRAQI POPULATION, REUTERS, JUL 27
This, of course, is the middle of the eighth month without an
UNSCOM/IAEA presence in Iraq, as the Wash Post's Fred Hiatt, Jul 25,
noted, and not the seventh month, as "Iraq News" mistakenly counted.
And today is the nineth anniversary of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Commenting on the Jul 19 Mother Jones' story on the Iraqi Six--
opposition members whom the INS had sought to deport on the basis of
secret evidence--a knowledgeable reader remarked, "The Iraqi Six is a
clear-cut case of CIA internal warfare. In this case it's an extension
of the INC vs. INA situation. Steve Richter at DO/NE is rabidly
anti-INC and the files that remain classified are INA HUMINT reporting
on the Iraqi Six, and others, which portray them as infiltrated by the
Mukhabarat. Unfortunately, the INA reports were written by Mukhabarat
agents who infiltrated the INA for just that purpose, to fill the CIA's
heads with dreams of a quick coup and to discredit the INC."
The INS recently lost its third secret evidence case since April,
when an Immigration Judge dismissed the charge that a Palestinian, Hany
Khairaldin, was a threat to U.S. national security and ordered that he
be freed and allowed to remain in the US [see "Iraq News, Feb 22]. In
late Jun, five of the Iraqi six were released. And, as the NYT, Jul 31,
reported, an Immigration Judge ruled that Nasser Ahmed, an Egyptian who
had served as Sheikh Omar's legal assistant, was not a threat to
national security; should be released; and should be granted asylum.
The last may give some readers of "Iraq News" heartburn, but thought
should be given to the possibility that the INS is going after the wrong
people and their use of secret evidence exacerbates the problem. It
makes it too easy for people to do sloppy work and then hide their
mistakes. Immigration judges are not independent of the executive
branch, as are judges in the criminal court system. Therefore, they are
not inclined to rule against the Gov't lightly.
So, "Iraq News" would like, once again, to clarify aspects of a major
mistake that the Clinton administration made in its handling of the two
1993 NYC bombing conspiracies. That led to a basic misunderstanding
about the nature of the terrorist threat-individuals/loose networks vs.
terrorist states/known terrorist organizations. Also, a mistake was
made by the Rabin/Peres Gov't that encouraged American Jewish
organizations to focus on the danger from Muslim extremists--who
threatened the peace process--blinding them to the threat from other
sources, even as under some circumstances, the mistakes made then, in
both the US and Israel, could leave the populations of both countries
vulnerable to terrible acts of terrorism, including BW terrorism.
On Feb 26, 1993, Iraqi intelligence carried out a false flag
operation, using Muslim fundamentalists, to bomb NYC's tallest tower.
[See Laurie Mylroie, "The World Trade Center Bomb: Who is Ramzi Yousef?
And why it Matters," posted at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm ]
Up until Jul 92, NY FBI had used an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem,
for intelligence gathering on the local fundamentalists, including those
around El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian who shot and killed Meir Kahane in
Nov 90 and who was convicted on lesser charges in Dec 91 and sent to
Attica. Those who had supported Nosair in his trial visited him in
prison. Salem, working for the FBI, was among them. Nosair wanted
revenge. He urged his friends to carry out a pipe-bombing campaign
against his enemies. Salem offered to make the bombs. And that turned
an intelligence investigation into a criminal investigation. If the FBI
became involved in making bombs, it would be for the purpose of
arresting, trying, and convicting those involved. But Salem wouldn't
cooperate-he refused to wear a body wire or testify in a trial-and he
was dropped.
The head of NY FBI counterintelligence then was Carson Dunbar, now
being considered to head New Jersey State police. Some are holding the
decision to drop Salem against him, as the NYT, Jul 30, reported.
Oliver Revell, a retired FBI official who works with Steve Emerson, told
the NYT, "In hindsight, it was obviously the wrong move to shut the
investigation down. If we had continued that investigation, it would
have led us to the sheik's people and it's possible we could have
prevented the bombing."
If NY FBI had continued the investigation, it does seem it could
have prevented the World Trade Center [WTC] bombing. But those who
carried it out are not properly described as "the sheik's people."
Iraqi intelligence learned of Nosair's plot, probably through the calls
of a conspirator, Mohammed Salameh, to his uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr. Abu
Bakr had served 18 years in an Israeli prison for terrorism, before
being released and making his way to Baghdad. There, in the summer of
1992, he worked in the PLO office. Probably, Salameh's calls to his
uncle were monitored by Iraqi intelliegence. In Sept, after the FBI had
dropped Salem, Ramzi Yousef appeared on the scene. Yousef changed the
nature of the plot, carried out the bombing, and left the
fundamentalists behind to be arrested.
Indeed, Gov Exhibit 55119-E in the trial of Shaykh Omar et. al. is a
statement made to the FBI by an individual identified as "NY
28214-CW-C." who had a minor role in the second NYC bombing conspiracy.
On Dec 27/28, 1993 he told the FBI of his discussions with Mahmoud Abu
Halima, an Egyptian, tried and convicted for his role in the World Trade
Center bombing. GX 55119-E states, "Mahmoud advised NY 28214-CW-C in
connection with the World Trade Center that the planned act was not as
big as what subsequently occurred. Mahmoud informed that Ramzi Yousef
showed up on the scene and brought a number of individuals together and
escalated the initial plot. Mahmoud stated that Ramzi Yousef used
himself and others involved with the Trade Center blast as pawns and
then immediately after the blast left the country." An FBI report taken
on Aug 12 94, from the same person said, "Mohammed Abu Halima told CW
that Mohammed Salameh had dealt with Iraqi intelligence. This
information came out during conversations CW had with Mohammed regarding
Salameh."
How did it come to be understood that Shaykh Omar Abdul Rahman was
behind the WTC bomb? Following the bombing, New York FBI reconciled
with Salem and used him to carry out an undercover operation, directed
against the fundamentalists. A Sudanese immigrant, Siddiq Ali, took up
the bait to make jihad. His first target was a Manhattan armory, but he
had contacts with two intelligence agents who worked at Sudan's UN
mission. And they switched the targets. The armory was dropped and the
UN and Federal building were added, along with two NYC tunnels.
When the FBI had the evidence it needed, above all video of the
conspirators mixing what they thought was explosive material, it
arrested them on Jun 24, 93. Two days later, the US hit Iraqi
intelligence headquarters, saying that the strike was for the attempt to
kill George Bush. With that, the White House believed it had taken
care of the NYC bombing conspiracies as well [see "Iraq News," Mar 4].
During the second bombing conspiracy, the FBI tried to implicate
Shaykh Omar, but he was not that interested. The focus of his activity
was Egypt, where he wanted to overthrow the Gov't. Thus, according to a
US Gov't memorandum in the Shaykh Omar proceedings, on May 23, 93, Salam
asked Shaykh Omar, whether it was permitted to blow up the UN. He
replied, that "'it would not be forbidden, but it would muddy the waters
for Muslims.' Salem then asked, 'do we do it? ' Rahman answered, 'No.
Find a pl-find a plan to inflict damage-to inflict damage on the army.
The American army. Because the United Nations would harm Muslims; harm
them tremendously.' . . .
"Salem then asked Rahman what he thought of the plan to bomb [the
Federal Building]. Rahman responded, 'Well, uh, a little bit later.
We'll talk about this.' When Salem indicated that the plan was
currently in motion, Rahman responded, 'It doesn't matter. Slow down.
Slow down a little bit. The one who killed Kennedy was trained for
three years.'"
What Shaykh Omar meant by his last remark is unclear. But it
scarcely constituted an endorsement of the plot. So NY FBI wanted to
deport him. In fact, he was picked up and ordered deported--on the
charge of bigamy.
But the NY politicians, who had little idea of what had happened,
howled for the head of Shaykh Omar. And the US Atty's office in
Manhattan came up with a law on which Shaykh Omar could be charged--
seditious conspiracy, which grew out of a post civil-war statue and
which was used against supporters of the Confederacy. The law was
amended in 1918 and used to prosecute socialists and deport immigrants
during the "Red Scare." It states, "If two or more persons in any
State or Territory or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder or delay the
execution of any law of the United States contrary to the authority
thereof, they shall each be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both." As the NYT, Aug 28, 93 explained,
"Because the law does not require the Government to prove that the
defendants committed any overt acts to further their conspiracy-or even
that they knew of all the acts the others committed-some criminal
defense experts say the law comes perilously close to punishing people
for their beliefs or speech."
And that is what Shaykh Omar was charged with-seditious conspiracy,
essentially inspiring acts of terrorism. Thus, some people who listened
to Shaykh Omar's fiery speeches participated in the WTC bombing and some
others participated in the second bombing conspiracy. And if the key
players in both plots were Iraqi and Sudanese intelligence agents? It
doesn't matter for the purposes of the trial.
Indeed, Jim Fox, then head of NY FBI, once told "Iraq News" of the
meeting in which the decision to indict Shaykh Omar was made. He was
there, representing NY FBI, as was Mary Jo White, representing the US
Atty's office. Also present was a representative from FBI headquarters
and DoJ in Wash DC. Janet Reno chaired the meeting. He argued strongly
against indicting Shaykh Omar; FBI headquarters argued mildly against;
White argued mildly in favor; and DoJ argued strongly in favor. Five
minutes before the hour-long meeting ended, Reno wrapped her knuckles on
the table and said, "Okay. We'll indict him." As Fox later told "Iraq
News," "I wish I had spoken up."
That is not because Fox is an apologist for Shaykh Omar, nor is "Iraq
News." But he understood what had happened. Americans came to believe
that Shaykh Omar was responsible for the NYC terrorism, rather than
Iraq and Sudan. And that misunderstanding has given terrorist states,
like Iraq, a way to carry out major acts of terrorism, kill Americans,
and never be held responsible, particularly if a few perps are left
behind to be arrested and tried. Indeed, Americans have died, because
of the sly way the Clinton administration handled the NYC bombing
conspiracies. It is something that is very hard for most people to
understand, because it reflects an irresponsibility that one does not
usually associate with the US Gov't.
Readers will remember the two-part Aug 6 98 "Iraq News," detailing
the angry Iraqi statements issued the day before, when Baghdad announced
the suspension of UNSCOM inspections. The Wash Post, Aug 1, in a story
about the US prosecution of Osama bin Ladin noted that 17 people had
been indicted for the Aug 7 Kenya/ Tanzania bombings. But only eight
of them are alleged to have been in Kenya/Tanzania around the time of
the bombings. And of those eight, only two relatively low-ranking
figures, are under arrest. The other six escaped and over the past
year, have successfully eluded the FBI.
In a Jul 29 Wash Post report on the US pursuit of bin Ladin, a
former CIA official, Milt Bearden, cautioned that the US was turning him
into a folk hero, "One should go to the refugee camps throughout
Pakistan and find out how many boy children have been named Osama since
last August."
The Wash Post also stated "the most chilling threat posed presented
by [bin Ladin 's organization] al Qaeda involves its possible
acquisition of chemical weapons. . . . [Kenneth] Katzman, citing
numerous press reports, said he believes 'we have to assume that he has
some rudimentary chemical capability.' One US official stated that bin
Ladin has 'actively sought to acquire chemical weapons, and it is
possible that he could conduct some type of [small-scale] chemical
attack.' . . . Once only the state sponsors of terrorism-a short list
that includes Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea-were thought
capable of organizing chemical attacks."
Why has that changed? The Wash Post didn't explain. And it didn't
ask the question that the NYT, Apr 13, asked-how is one man capable of
all that?
Sec Def William Cohen wrote about the dangers of CBW terrorism in
the Wash Post, Jul 26, "A biological agent would sink into the
respiratory and nervous systems of the afflicted. . . . The march of the
contagion could accelerate astoundingly with doctors offering little
relief. Hospitals would become warehouses for the dead and the dying.
A plague more monstrous than anything we have experienced could spread
with all the irrevocability of ink on tissue paper."
Where does that threat come from? It is necessary to have some
idea, in order to deal as effectively as possible with the terrible
danger.
Cohen wrote, "At least 25 countries, including Iraq and North Korea,
now have--or are in the process of acquiring and developing weapons of
mass destruction. Of particular concern is the possible persistence in
some foreign military arsenals of smallpox, the horrific infectious
virus that decimated entire nations down the ages and against which the
global population is currently defenseless. Also looming is the chance
that these terror weapons will find their way into the hands of
individuals and independent groups-fanatical terrorists and religious
zealots beyond our borders, brooding loners and self-proclaimed
apocalyptic prophets at home. . . . In 1995 the Japanese cult Aum
Shinrikyo used sarin gas in its attack on the Tokyo subway and also
planned to unleash anthrax against US forces in Japan. Those behind the
1993 World Trade Center bombing were also gathering the ingredients for
a chemical weapon that could have killed thousands."
Indeed, NY law enforcement believed that the WTC conspirators meant
to release a cloud of cyanide gas, but the gas was burnt up in the heat
of the explosion. Still, what Cohen wrote was apples-and-oranges, a
mish mosh. Does the threat come from states or individuals? He didn't
say, but left the impression it was the latter.
Yet Aum Shinrikyo was something rare and may not readily reoccur
elsewhere. It was a very large and wealthy cult, that included a number
of educated scientists, and which enjoyed an unusual degree of freedom,
because Japan's post-war constitution provides for the strict protection
of religious freedom. In addition, Japanese police verged on the
incompetent. Prior to the attack on the Tokyo subway, there had been a
sarin gas release, in which seven people were killed. But Japanese
authorities never got to the bottom of it. Finally, terrible as the
attack in the Tokyo subway was, not that many people died, while Aum
Shinrikyo's attempt to carry out an anthrax attack didn't work. Nothing
happened and authorities did not even know such an attempt had been
made. What Aum Shinrikyo did, though bad enough, is not what is feared.
What is feared is the kind of CBW attack that would constitute a major
assault, with implications for nat'l security and domestic stability.
And if a state, rather than a cult, were to carry out a CBW terrorist
attack, wouldn't it be much more likely to succeed in causing
devastating consequences?
US Gov't officials routinely describe the existence of a terrible
danger, about which almost nothing can be done. Indeed, at a Jul 27
DoD press briefing, a journalist asked about Cohen's article. He
received little satisfaction and concluded, saying, "Normally, when you
outline a serious problem like this it's accompanied with some sort of
suggestion of what the solution is. What is the solution for defense
against a biological attack? There doesn't seem to be one in this
article."
Thus, there is general agreement that the US has a serious terrorism
problem. But one aspect of the matter that is scarcely discussed is the
possibility of state sponsorship.
Finally, the Red Cross, as Reuters, Jul 27, reported, issued a
statement saying, "The civilian population of Iraq is continuing to
suffer an alarming deterioration of its living conditions as the country
enters its 10th year under UN embargo." Also, Iraq is suffering its
worst drought since 1932. One can only underscore the bizarreness of
Saddam's retaining his proscribed unconventional capabilities under such
circumstances, and the near certainty that his purposes are not idle.
I. WILLIAM COHEN, THE CBW TERRORISM DANGER
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-07/26/014l-072699-idx.html
II. RED CROSS, EMBARGO HURTS IRAQI POPULATION
Tuesday July 27 10:57 AM ET
Red Cross Says Iraq Trade Embargo Hurts Population
GENEVA (Reuters) - The International Committee of the Red Cross said
Tuesday the U.N. trade embargo against Iraq was worsening the living
conditions of the population, but stopped short of calling for an end to
the sanctions.
``I have seen surgical gloves being washed and dried for re-use and
doctors' greens splattered with blood -- direct consequences of the
embargo,'' Michel Minnig, who led an ICRC delegation to Iraq, told a
news conference upon returning to Geneva headquarters.
When pressed by journalists, Minnig declined to call for an end to
the embargo, saying that was up to politicians and not the realm of his
humanitarian organization.
``The civilian population of Iraq is continuing to suffer an alarming
deterioration of its living conditions as the country enters its 10th
year under U.N. embargo,'' the ICRC said in a statement.
The organization said that in the health system buildings were not
maintained and expensive imported equipment such as X-ray machines were
not replaced.
On top of that, Iraq is suffering from its worst drought since 1932,
the ICRC said.
Minnig said Iraq was having electricity failures of several hours per
day. The population near areas that had been bombed by U.S and British
aircraft, such as near the city of Mosul, were under terrible stress.
``In Iraq, people nearly have no hope left the conflict will end,'' he
said.
The ICRC said it did not want to condemn the sanctions. ''Our task is
not to say what needs to be done with the sanctions, our task is to draw
the attention of politicians to the consequences,'' Minnig said.
He said there were still some 1,600 people missing from Iraq's two most
recent wars, the Iran-Iraq border war and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait
and the Gulf War that followed.
``It is important for the families of these people that at least they
get the impression that everything is being done to address this
issue,'' Minnig said. The ICRC acts as a neutral intermediary between
Iraq and Western allies in an effort to settle the humanitarian issues
still unresolved after the Gulf War. The agency has decided step up its
work in the country and is asking for an additional 7.7 million Swiss
francs ($5.1 million) to bring its budget for Iraq in 1999 to 21.7
million francs.
It said it aims to repair the buildings of 12 of the 18 main
hospitals and 18 primary health centers, to supply one main hospital in
each of the 18 regions with surgical and other equipment and to extend
and improve river intake structures in water treatment plants. The first
hospital to be rehabilitated will be the Basra Teaching Hospital.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
