Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Out of Context, Part 8

We continue from Part 7, reviewing a September, 2004, interview entitled The Third Terrorist, where FrontPageMag.com talks with journalist and author Jayna Davis about the Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

FP: Why has this story been untold up till now? Why did the FBI not pursue the Islamic/Iraqi connection?

Davis: The answer has haunted and mystified me for nearly a decade. I am a journalist who prefers to connect the dots with facts. However, in order to address your query, I must offer conjecture and leave it to your readers to decide the motivations behind the FBI's failure and/or refusal to investigate the dossier of evidence I have compiled exposing Middle Eastern complicity behind the brutal slaughter of 171 Americans, including women and children.

One possibility to which I attribute little plausibility is that this information innocently slipped through the cracks of a massive federal investigation due to gross incompetence. However, I cannot explain why the FBI flatly refused to take receipt of this information in 1997 when I offered twenty-two witness statements and hundreds of pages of corroborative documentation implicating Iraqi nationals in the Murrah Building bombing.

Officials with the Justice Department informed my lawyer, Tim McCoy, and later confirmed to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News that prosecutors "did not want any more documents for discovery" that they would be compelled by law to surrender to the defense teams for McVeigh and Nichols.

Well, I am going to have to stick up for convicted mass-murdering terrorists here.

Whoever they are, whatever they did, whatever they were accused of, they deserve fair and impartial treatment by the judicial system. Perhaps more than anyone else, federal law enforcement authorities have the responsibility of protecting the civil rights of accused criminals.

In this case, by discouraging more documents for discovery, federal law enforcement authorities not only denied a degree of justice to McVeigh and Nichols, but they also denied full justice to the families of the victims by leaving the crime less than fully investigated, and thus by possibly letting some of the conspirators go free -- and this endangers society, as these free conspirators might strike again.

Perhaps they already have struck again.

In 1999, I returned to the Bureau, and a very courageous FBI agent, Dan Vogel, took custody of the twenty-two witness affidavits. In compliance with official protocol, Agent Vogel passed the evidence up the chain of command to be reviewed by the legal department at the Oklahoma City FBI field office.

From there, the documents inexplicably vanished. The evidence was ultimately withheld from the defense teams for McVeigh and Nichols. More egregious was the undisputed fact that the FBI made no attempt to prove or disprove the veracity of the witnesses' testimonies. None was called. None was questioned.

To this day, the Justice Department has refused my requests to officially clear the man identified by witnesses as the mysterious third terrorist who delivered the weapon of mass destruction to the intersection of 5th and Harvey Streets on that dreadful spring morning. Yet the Bureau did not hesitate to exonerate several innocent men who were named in the media as having been collared and questioned simply because they bore a slight resemblance to the sketch of John Doe 2.

My meticulous research into the Iraqi soldier's whereabouts for the morning of April 19 roundly discredits his publicly espoused alibi. Why the FBI has never questioned Hussain Al-Hussaini or his Middle Eastern cohorts, I am at a loss to explain. That question should be posed to the former administration and the handful of officials who were charged with investigating and prosecuting the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

The survivors and slain of April 19 deserve justice and our country deserves the truth. Was Oklahoma City the silver bullet that could have prevented 9-11?

To be clear about this, had federal authorities competently handled the Oklahoma City bombing, they might have brought to justice some of the people who later were involved in orchestrating 9/11.

FP: So how will justice be achieved? Howe will the rest of the perpetrators be punished?

Davis: I leave the outcome and pursuit of justice to the American people. If my readers believe that I have presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for foreign complicity in the Oklahoma City bombing, then I implore concerned citizens to start a grass roots campaign to demand the arrest, interrogation, and criminal prosecution of the Iraqi suspects identified in my book.

After all, if the man whom multiple eyewitnesses positively pegged as the third terrorist had foreknowledge of the 9-11 plot, then what do he and his Iraqi cohorts know about the next strike Al-Qaeda is planning to execute within our borders? American lives hang in the balance. We cannot afford to speculate that these men will not be re-activated to construct more truck bombs like the one that levelled a nine-story building in 1995.

FP: Jayna Davis, thank you. It was a pleasure to speak with you.

Davis: Thank you Jamie.

Back to FrontPageMag.com's first question in this segment: "Why has this story been untold up till now? Why did the FBI not pursue the Islamic/Iraqi connection?"

As I commented previously, who knows why President Clinton might have swept that connection under the rug, but certainly this would have been a much meatier reason for Bush to go to war with Iraq, rather than the questionable stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and so on. Why didn't Bush pursue this?

Sibel Edmonds has made several comments in the context of her case, but let me take some of those comments out of context to shed some possible light on the Oklahoma City bombing.

From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

You know, it's funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there was "no information-sharing" between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and this is why the terrorists pulled it off -- as if we didn't want to cooperate. No information-sharing? That's the biggest BS I ever heard!

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SH: And as you pointed [out], some of this information has been confirmed in the public. I know when you speak about the Iranian informant...

SE: Correct.

SH: ...who warned in April of 2001 -- that was even confirmed by Mueller, the director of the FBI.

SE: Absolutely there was actually an article in the Chicago Tribune in July 2004 saying that even Mueller expressed surprise that during the hearings, the commissioners didn't ask about this. And guess what, nobody reported all these omissions. What would happen if you hit them with 20 cases? And I'm talking about 20 affidavits from experts and veteran agents.

SH: This is all about the question of prior knowledge and who knew what, when before the attack.

SE: And also what happened afterward. I started working three days after Sept. 11 with a lot of documents and wiretaps that I was translating. Some of them dated back to 1997, 1998. Even after Sept. 11, covering up these investigations and not pursuing some of these investigations because the Department of State says, "You know what, you can't pursue this because that may deal with this particular country. If this country that the investigation deals with are not one of the Axis of Evil, we don't want to pursue them." The American people have the right to know this. They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?

Perhaps the connections that Jayna Davis made didn't stop with Iraq.

Perhaps the connections led to other countries, as well....

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

CD: Can you elaborate here on what countries you mean?

SE: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries – that is, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have been talking about.

CD: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these issues. No one asks questions about these countries – questions like, "OK, how much of their GDP depends on drugs?"

CD: But of course, you're not implying...

SE: And then to compare that little survey with what countries we've been putting military bases in --

Perhaps those in power know that the people named in Davis' book are connected to others, who in turn have connections that lead back to Washington?

From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: And there were four major FBI investigations, not counting yours, that were squelched in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York.

SE: Correct.

JH: And yours was even outside of that.

SE: Correct.

JH: So, obviously, we have mid-level FBI people who have been told something. It was the mid-level FBI people who knew enough to squelch many of these investigations before they went further. So how did they know to do that? Can all of them have been incompetent?

SE: No. Absolutely not.

JH: So they got the word down from Mueller, probably.

SE: I cannot confirm that for sure, but I can tell you that there is so much involvement, that if they did let this information out, and if they were to hold real investigations--I'm not talking about this semi-investigation they're holding under this "Joint Inquiry"--the pure show of the 9/11 Commission that has been getting the mass media's attention. If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country.

This post concludes this series, but this post does not conclude our look at the OKBOMB!

No comments: