Complete 911 Timeline
During this period, bin Laden and Mohammed Atef, his military commander, use a satellite phone provided by a friend to direct al-Qaeda’s operations. Its use is discontinued two months after a US missile strike against bin Laden’s camps on August 20, 1998, when an unnamed senior official boasts that the US can track his movements through the use of the phone. [Sunday Times, 3/24/02]
Records show “Britain was at the heart of the terrorist’s planning for his worldwide campaign of murder and destruction.” 260 calls were made to 27 phone numbers in Britain. The other countries called were Yemen (over 200 calls), Sudan (131), Iran (106), Azerbaijan (67), Pakistan (59), Saudi Arabia (57), a ship in the Indian Ocean (13), the US (6), Italy (6), Malaysia (4), and Senegal (2). “The most surprising omission is Iraq, with not a single call recorded.” [Sunday Times, 3/24/02]
People and organizations involved: al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atef
Pay special attention to those 200 calls to Yemen, because some of those calls were vital to tracing Bin-Laden to the African Embassy bombings, the Cole bombings, and to 9/11.
It involves a ‘safe house’ that the NSA was monitoring, and calls made from this safe house are now being used as a justification for jettisoning our Fourth Amendment rights.
Complete 911 Timeline
An al-Qaeda operative involved in the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi is captured and interrogated by the FBI. The FBI learns the telephone number of a safe house in Yemen, owned by bin Laden associate Ahmed al-Hada, hijacker Khalid Almihdhar’s father-in-law [Die Zeit, 10/1/02; Newsweek, 6/2/02]
US intelligence also learns that the safe house is an al-Qaeda “logistics center,” used by agents around the world to communicate with each other and plan attacks. [Newsweek, 6/2/02]
It is later revealed that bin Laden called the safe house dozens of times from 1996 to 1998 (the two years he had a traced satellite phone). [Sunday Times, 3/24/02; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02]
The NSA and CIA jointly plant bugs inside the house, tap the phones, and monitor visitors with spy satellites. [Mirror, 6/9/02]
The NSA later records Khalid Almihdhar and other hijackers calling this house, including calls from the US. In late 1999, the phone line will lead the CIA to an important al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia. [Newsweek, 6/2/02] It appears al-Qaeda continues to use this phone line until the safe house is raided by the Yemeni government in February 2002. [CBS News, 2/13/02]
Who is Khalid Almidhar?
He was, allegedly, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. He was the son-in-law of the owner of the Yemen safe house. And he rented a room from an FBI informant.
The two hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, lived in San Diego in the fall of 2000 and were taken in by a Muslim man after he met them at a local Islamic center. The landlord had been an informant for the FBI, supplying information about the Islamic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
The revelation, first reported by Newsweek, focuses renewed attention on possible mistakes made by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence prior to September 11. Newsweek reported that the FBI informant lived in close quarters with the two future hijackers.
“The FBI concedes that a San Diego case agent appears to have been at least aware that Saudi visitors were renting rooms in the informant’s house,” Newsweek reported.
You can learn more about Almidhar and the Yemen connection, here.
So, let’s recap before we move forward. The FBI captured a man involved in the 1998 African Embassy bombings. He told them about a safe house in Yemen owned by Khalid Almidhar’s father-in-law. The intelligence community placed bugs in the house (CIA), used satellites to monitor visitors (National Reconnaissance Office), and they traced their phone calls (NSA).
Khalid Almidhar moved to San Diego, (after being monitored at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia and tailed by the CIA), where he moved into an apartment of an FBI informant. The FBI case officer admits to knowing about the Saudi tenants living in his informant’s house.
This informant was not allowed to testify before Congress or the 9/11 Commission.
…The cover-up charge stems from the FBI’s refusal to allow inquiry staff to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of Sept. 11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
In his book “Intelligence Matters,” Graham said an FBI official wrote to Goss and Graham in November 2002 and said “the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source. Nor did the administration agree to allow the FBI to serve subpoena or a notice of deposition on the source.”
In his telephone news conference, Graham called the letter “a smoking gun” and said, “The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House.”
Now, there is more smoke involving these San Diego hijackers. They received money, indirectly, from the wife of Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States.
There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry.
Now, Dick Cheney made the following argument at the Heritage Foundation today:
“They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas, but we didn’t know they were here plotting until it was too late,” he said.
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin dismissed Cheney’s argument as “the kind people like to make sometimes when they’re trying to cover their tracks.”
Russ is probably more correct than he realizes. Setting all conspiracy theories aside, we already know that the NSA monitored Almidhar’s phone calls to the Yemen safe house. Whether they had a warrant to do that is irrelevent. They did it. It’s on the public record that they did it.
Ergo, Dick Cheney’s entire argument is flawed and misleading.
Our failure to apprehend Almidhar prior to 9/11 may have many causes, including the lack of communication between the NSA, NRO, CIA, and the FBI. But, it has nothing to do with a need for speed in getting a warrant to wiretap his communications with Yemen.
And, given the above set of facts, no FISA judge would have denied a warrant.
Amazing story. I had heard the part about the FBI informant sheltering the 9/11 terrorists, but this goes much deeper than I had ever expected.
Christ, what the hell is Bush trying to cover up?
You know, the more I see of how depraved and dishonest the Repubs really are (and how tangled their web is), the more I worry about the answer to that question.
to be creeped out. But this is just bizarro. Michael Moore’s pointing fingers at Saudi ties gets truer all the time.
about Republicans for 20-25 years and more consistently come from the fringes.
The far left, trying to draw attention to what they’re actually doing, and the far right, promising what they intend to actually do.
One of my fundamental rules of system design is that when mainly crazy people are right, system has big problems.
This is compounded when the accepted mainstream sources have been based on bad information as in the so called terrorism experts.
Sorry if this link is a duplicate but it’s a good one for also filling in the gaps.
article excerpts with more commentary
Wiretaps: Two Who Got Away
or
original at Village Voice
Wiretaps: Two Who Got Away
cross-posted at Daily Kos.
The WAPO makes it clear that it was the FBI which didn’t want Abdussattar to testify:
What makes this odd of course is that Shaikh was no longer an informant and of course that this was 9/11, not some burglary incident!
Not only that, but his handler, Steven Butler, testified behind closed doors. So any information Shaikh would’ve given would’ve been private. And of course if Shaikh has nothing of substance to reveal, why all the hesitation?
Even weirder is that after Shaikh was identified as an FBI informer, he “publically objected to that characterization”. I’m curious whether or not Shaikh WAS an informer and exactly what the nature of his relationship to the FBI was.
Not to mention all the FBI rigamarole saying Shaikh was a professor at San Diego State and elsewhere, when in reality he was determined to NOT be a professor (or anything else) at those institutions. Why lie about an informer’s background if you’re not even going to use his testimony?
Not only that, but at least two witnesses say they saw Mohammed Atta on several occasions over at Shaikh’s house, which is a different kettle of fish than renting out a few rooms to some innocuous students.
What I’ve NEVER seen covered is, if Shaikh wasn’t a professor at ANY school, then what exactly was his profession?
And of course god almighty lets not forget about Sam Koutchesfahani.
Oh but 9/11 is quite a fish…
Pax
I believe the mystery of 9/11 can be discovered in San Diego, and in getting to the bottom of who that FBI informant was and who he worked for.
The fact that he was not allowed to testify or even talk to the investigators after an inconclusive polygraph is completely unacceptable.
If Atta really hung out at his house, then we have a total cover-up of that fact. AND that is very disturbing.
Steve Coll, in Ghost Wars, has a bit on al-Midhar after the Kuala Lampur meeting in Maylasia. After visually observing & photographing, but not bugging the meeting:
This may be the same Yemeni safe house FBI agent john O’Neill was looking into in the wake of the USS cole bombing before he (O’Neill) was denied permission to re-enter Yemen by Ambassador Barbara Bodine at the (presumed) request of Louis Freeh,his partner in incompetence Tom Pickard, and the Defense Department.
This link here is to a really great PBS Frontline Show called “The Man Who Knew”. It’s the story of John O’Neill, former FBI Agent who clashed with his bosses, and who was killed on his first day at his new job as head of security for the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.
(I watch this show periodically just to remind myself how fraudulent this whole supposed War on Terror really is.)
Doesn’t all of this have to include other factors of influence to help explain all of it? I’m not an expert in these matters but it seems that some who are claimed as such, aren’t either.
Some of the most widely accepted truths on therrorism for the past twenty years doesn’t hold up to required standards of credibility when examined closely. Given the influence of the right wing think tanks and zealots of ideology financing/promoting these works, most of it appears propagandized.
It honestly looks like a continuous buildup to the Iraq war that took ten years transition plus ten years establishing. This is what happens when Iran-contra is taken away and nobody was really held accountable. It just morphed into a new covert threat. 1998 was pivotal.
And, given the above set of facts, no FISA judge would have denied a warrant.
My understanding is that no warrant would have been required under FISA to monitor Osama’s calls to a safe house in Yemen. It’s only needed when the persons being monitored are in the US.
Smells like Able Danger to me!
And worse:
Bush likes to spy on Americans but hates to spy on Saudis
But this stuff is important. They wouldn’t lie when it’s important, right?
OK, so we are now talking about the SoCal ‘dropped balls’, or ‘missed connections’ as They like to say.
This is one of two black holes in the official line on 9/11 that will sink it, expecially if they are both revealed before they are cleaned up. There is a specific person who ran this informant for the FBI. This person has a name. This person is important, as is his NSA/CIA equivalent and anyone who spoke with those people within a few months before 9/11. These specific persons where in the position to execute any cover-up of US intelligence or administration complicity in plotting terror attacks on domestic targets. Someone should talk to them. I am too scared and too poor a journalist, but I’ll ask my betters out there to please do so.
The second black hole is the sudden spike in activity on the options markets in the period around 9/11. Options betting against the Airlines generally and those involved in particular. Those contracts have paper trails. Those trails should be revealed as far as they lead. This will reveal the types of people who had prior knowledge. Even if the paper trail is obfuscated, the methods of obfuscation and the location the trail dries up should be very informative. There is bupkiss on this since soon after 9/11. Lost in the Memory Hole?
Exactly how blown can our collective minds become? Can’t wait to find out.