Latest revision as of 22:08, 29 June 2012
In 2006 the Muckraker Report published a story quoting an FBI official saying there was "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11". The original site no longer exists, but here's the complete text of the story as available at archive.org:
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”
In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?
Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]
[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20031224171829/http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001,
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
http://web.archive.org/web/20070218202452/www.muckrakerreport.com/id2.html
The argument here appears to be something like this.
1: It's surprising that bin Laden has not been indicted for 9/11.
2: The lack of an indictment, combined with the "no hard evidence" comment, suggests that perhaps the FBI don't accept the "Bin Laden - 9/11 connection" reported in the media.
3: In any event, the "no hard evidence" comment suggests that the FBI don't accept the bin Laden "confession" tape as reliable.
4: And if there's no "hard evidence" linking bin Laden to 9/11 then the US should not have invaded Afghanistan to "smoke him out of his cave".
Let's take a look at each of these arguments in turn.
Indicted for 9-11
Bin Laden hasn't been indicted for 9/11, this is true, and as a result 9/11 isn't included on his FBI poster. But that's not the only omission. As we write the "Caution" section on that page reads like this:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
So there's a specific mention only of the embassy bombings, nothing else at all. But does that mean we can assume the FBI believe bin Laden has no connection to, say, the Cole bombing of October 2000? Not at all: bin Laden was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2003 Cole-related indictment:
U.S. Indicts Two Yemeni Nationals, Al Qaeda Members in USS Cole Attack
By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, May 15, 2003 – Two Yemeni nationals were indicted on charges for plotting the attack on the naval destroyer USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden in Yemen in 2000, officials said today.
Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller unsealed a 50- count indictment, naming Jamal Mohammed Al-Badawi and Fahd Mohammed Ahmed Al- Quso for their roles in the Cole attack that killed 17 sailors and wounded more than 40 others. The two were also charged with a previous failed attempt to bomb another destroyer, the USS The Sullivans, in early 2000...
"I know many of them are concerned about our focus on Sept. 11 and the prevention of future attacks. I want to ensure them that the Cole investigation has been and will remain a top priority for the FBI," he said...
The attorney general named Al-Badawi as a key operative in Aden who was enlisted to take part in the attack by members of Osama bin Laden's "inner circle." Al-Bawadi is alleged to have procured safe houses in Aden for terrorists. He also is charged with obtaining the attack boat, truck and trailer used to tow the boat to the Aden harbor, Ashcroft said...
The two men, whom Ashcroft said are "long-time al Qaeda terrorist associates," remain at large as international fugitives after escaping from a prison in Yemen in April.
He said the two men are believed to have trained in the al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan during the 1990s.
Ashcroft said the indictment charges that the two men were schooled in bin Laden's "hate and vowed to attack and kill Americans wherever and whenever they could," especially American nationals on the Arabian Peninsula, he said. The indictment also alleges it was bin Laden's pronouncement to kill Americans that motivated the defendants to conduct these terror operations, Ashcroft added...
Also named as co-conspirators in the indictment were several high-ranking members of al Qaeda, including its leader, bin Laden, who is charged with planning the USS Cole attack.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28976
Read the full indictment here
The Cole situation is a complex one, with others claiming they only confessed after torture, charges being made and dropped, suspects escaping from custody and being rearrested. What's notable, however, is despite the solid focus on al Qaeda, and the naming of bin Laden in an indictment for others, he's never been personally indicted for the attack and it doesn't appear on his FBI "most wanted" poster.
Browse through the FBI's "Most Wanted" terrorists and you'll find this approach, using just one indictment, is very much the norm. Even the "big names" like Ayman al-Zawahiri, Anas al-Liby or Adam Gadahn are only tied to single indictments.
Why? Well, practicality may have played a part. You only need one indictment to bring a suspect to trial, after all. Rex Tomb appeared to suggest as much when he was asked about bin Laden's wanted poster by the Washington Post:
Other informed commentators also appear unconcerned:
It's also worth noting that the FBI "Most Wanted" page itself says that further indictments may appear later: "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." (Source)
And later we saw Zacarias Moussaoui indicted in a federal court, and found guilty of being complicit in the al Qaeda planning of 9/11.
The situation was made more complicated when the Bush administration sought to define al Qaeda terrorists as "unlawful enemy combatants" who had violated the "laws of war". Subsequently the 2006 Military Commissions Act permitted them to be charged and tried through special military tribunals, rather than following the usual civil court route. Conventional indictments were no longer required for high level prisoners like some of the Guantanamo detainees, though this may change, depending on how the Obama administration decides to treat them.
In 2007 several al Qaeda members were charged in military courts with planning the 9/11 attacks. While bin Laden isn't amongst them, he does appear as a co-conspirator. Here's the first part of the first charge:
Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, at various locations, from in or about 1996 to in or about May 2003, conspire and agree with Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Kahtani; Mohammed Atef(a/k/a Abu Hafs al Masri), 19 individuals who hijacked four commercial airliners on September 11,2001: (American Airlines Flight 11, hereinafter AA #11) Mohamed Atta, Satam al Suqami, Waleed al Shehri, Wail al Shehri, Abdul Aziz al Omari; (United Airlines Flight 175, hereinafter UA #175) Marwan al Shehhi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Ahmed al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad (hereinafter Fayez Banihammad); (United Airlines Flight 93, hereinafter UA #93) Ziad Samir Jarrah, Ahmad Ibrahim A. al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami, Saeed al Ghamdi; (American Airlines Flight 77, hereinafter AA #77) Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Majed Moqed, Salem al Hazmi; and various other members and associates of the al Qaeda organization, known and unknown, and willfully join an enterprise of persons with the intent to further the unlawful purpose of the enterprise; to commit the following offenses triable by military commission: attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, and terrorism, said agreement and enterprise sharing a common criminal purpose, known to the five accused, to attack the United States, its people, and their property, said conspiracy resulting in the deaths of 2,973 persons. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A for a list of victims killed in the attacks).
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080509Mohammed.pdf
Bin Laden is an integral part of the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and others, so much so that this is the first act listed in the charges:
1. In August 1996, Usama bin Laden issued a public "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans," in which he called for the murder of U.S. military personnel serving on the Arabian Peninsula.
There's no apparent doubt here that bin Laden was involved. Of course this is "only" a military court: would there be a problem being indicted elsewhere? Apparently not, as we write:
There could be 9/11 indictments in a federal court very soon, then. And we shouldn't be surprised as this has already happened elsewhere, when a Spanish judge http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3116556.stm charged bin Laden in 2003] (though some alleged the US and Israel had "incited" Spain to do this).
In any event, it is not surprising for a terrorist suspect to be indicted for only one attack, even if the FBI believe they're connected to another. There's reason to believe that this is a policy decision, at least when it comes to 9/11: the US have preferred to take the military commission route. And therefore it's not safe to assume the lack of an indictment points to an absence of evidence, or some doubt over the suspect's guilt.
No hard evidence
We still have Haas telling us that the FBI believe there's "no hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11, of course.
The first problem with this statement is that it's not particularly clear. What is "hard evidence" here? Paper trails, the flow of money, witness statements? Haas doesn't tell us, so we can't say what evidence he might accept exists.
A second, and more fundamental problem is that the FBI don't stand by the comment. Betsy Glick in the FBI Public Affairs office told us that "The information provided at that time by the (now retired) Investigative Publicity Unit Chief, who was not an agent nor a counterterrorism expert, does not accurately explain the situation."
And this was hardly a surprise, as previous FBI statements make it clear that they've no doubt about the al Qaeda (and so bin Laden) part in 9/11:
So, the FBI tell us that the "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11" comment "does not accurately explain the situation", while Watson explained long ago that "The evidence linking al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable". We're still trying to get them to address the Haas account more definitively, but even now it's plain that the FBI do believe that the evidence clearly points to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as being responsible for 9/11.
Confession tape
In his original article Haas speculates that, if the FBI believe there's "no hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11, then that may cast doubt on the 2001 "confession tape".
This idea is significantly undermined by the fact that, as we've seen, the FBI have discredited the original "no hard evidence" comment by saying it "does not accurately explain the situation".
And notably even Ed Haas later came to believe that the tape was genuine (archive.org version). Presumably he either discarded the "no hard evidence" comment, or (more likely) simply decided this wasn't a substantial reason to believe the tape was faked, after all.
See also: Confession video
Afghanistan
Perhaps the most tenuous argument Haas makes is to suggest that American shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if there's "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11". Here's the relevant paragraph again:
First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
The reality is that the attack on Afghanistan was about vastly more than bin Laden. If you look at Bush's radio addresses, for instance, he didn't mention bin Laden on September 15th, immediately before the Afghan attack on October 6th, or after it on the 13th. Instead it was general talk about the terrorists and the Taliban.
The Blair dossier, released just before the Afghan attacks began, said "one of Bin Laden's closest and most senior associates was responsible for the detailed planning of the [9/11] attacks" (source). Even early on official pronouncements were saying bin Laden was not the hands-on mastermind.
And while bin Laden's name was often invoked in the press, perhaps most famously with Bush's "dead or alive", White House press conferences regularly made the point that this was about far more than him:
(Read more: All about bin Laden)
The initial focus was on the attacks as being planned by al Qaeda, then. Substantial evidence for that has been presented at the Moussaoui trial (exhibits are here). Al Qaeda members, videos and texts have implicitly and explicitly accepted responsibility (see here), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh provided detailed interviews on the plot to Al Jazeera (source), and have been charged with planning the attacks by the US. Even if the FBI today agreed that there's "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11" - which they do not - there's plenty to say that al Qaeda organised and planned 9/11, in part from Afghanistan, just as the US claimed before they launched their attack on that country in October 2001.
Conclusion
At the core of Ed Haas original piece is Rex Tomb's comment that there's "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11". As this lacks clarity - there's no explanation of what "hard evidence" means - and the FBI now say it "does not accurately explain the situation", we see little reason for it to overturn other public statements by the FBI, where they make it clear that they believe evidence linking al Qaeda to the attacks is "clear and irrefutable."
Elsewhere there's little here but rhetoric and speculation. The fact that bin Laden hasn't been indicted for 9/11 is often taken as some sign of doubt of his guilt, for example, but as we've seen, he's not been indicted for the USS Cole bombing, either, despite being named as a co-conspirator in an indictment of others. Not being personally indicted for a crime isn't always an indication that the authorities think you may be innocent.
And the focus on bin Laden can't conceal the fact that there's plenty of evidence indicating al Qaeda's responsibility for the attacks, including the exhibits in the Moussaoui trial, and their own multiple admissions. We may get more when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others face trial, but even without that there's more than enough to connect al Qaeda, and bin Laden, to 9-11.