Posted on 01/19/2004 1:22:28 AM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON - The U.S. is detaining a Saudi man in Cuba who is believed to be the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror plot, sources said yesterday. The Al Qaeda agent, identified by officials only as al-Qahtani, was intercepted in August 2001 by an alert Customs inspector at the Orlando airport but wasn't held, sources said."He was a little hinky when he came in and they put him on the next flight out," a senior law enforcement official told the Daily News.
Al-Qahtani was later picked up by coalition forces in Afghanistan and transferred to the terrorist prison at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
While at Gitmo, officials determined the Saudi was the same man turned away in Orlando before the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Qahtani is still under interrogation, the official said.
A top counterterrorism official told The News that the FBI has not conclusively proven the theory about al-Qahtani but said, "It's one that I, personally, think is valid."
The story was first reported yesterday by Newsweek.
Though several Al Qaeda suspects may have tried to enter the U.S. to join one of the hijacking cells, officials became convinced al-Qahtani was part of the 9/11 plot. That's because he arrived close to the day of the terror attacks and because Mohamed Atta, who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center's north tower, was photographed by a surveillance camera at the Orlando airport as he dialed a Middle East number on a payphone.
Since the 2001 attacks, several terror suspects have been labeled the 20th hijacker, including the plot's logistical planner, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Zacarias Moussaoui.
Both are now in U.S. custody and Justice Department lawyers have backed off claims that either was supposed to be the fifth hijacker on United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. Binalshibh said in a 2002 TV interview that the U.S. Capitol was the intended target.
Originally published on January 19, 2004
While somewhat implied, the article doesn't specify that Atta was at the Orlando airport the same day that al-Qahtani arrived.
Since the 2001 attacks, several terror suspects have been labeled the 20th hijacker, ...
Although there seems to be plenty of reason to hold this particular guy at Gitmo, this just shows that the "20th hijacker" label has become such a catch-all statement, to justify their actions, that the administration now carelessly tosses it out, even when they don't need to.
Remember that Dubya and th' boyz are still violating the 6th Amendment rights of a US citizen, by denying him access to the court, because they claimed that he was supposed to be the "20th hijacker". It's funny, that as they catch all these other "20th hijackers", they seem to forget all the ones that went before. I could care less what they do with all the rest of the "20th hijackers". But, when they deny the protection of the Constitution to any US citizen, even for the dubious claim that he is the "20th hijacker", they severely weaken the Constitutional protections of every US citizen. However, that transgression became substantially worse, when they didn't drop that claim and give him access to the court after they started claiming that others were the elusive"20th hijacker".
It seems that Dubya isn't going to let basic math interfere with what he wants to do, even if it is unconstitutional. If need be, he can just issue an executive order stating the Whitehouse has determined that, for purposes of the war on terror, 20 plus any number equals 20. After all, that "20th hijacker" label is too valuable a propaganda tool, to let it go to waste. Dubya and Ashcroft know that all they have to do is say, "20th hijacker" and most of the voting public will cringe in fear and not question their motives. This case just shows that they have so overused that propaganda phrase, that they now use it when they don't even need to. Unfortunately, the GOP voters are almost certain to give him a pass for those transgressions and will not replace him with a Constitutional conservative before the election.
That thinking is so 9/10. Screw the terrorists.
That thinking is so 9/10.
I know that Dubya must have you just quivering in your shoes, absolutely sick with fear about another terrorist attack, but neither your fear nor Dubya's willingness to feed your fear, for his own ends, is justification for violating our nation's most sacred law - the Constitution.
The Constitution is there to protect EVERY US citizen - not just those US citizens who think like you.
If the government were to falsely accuse you of burglary, murder or even terrorism, the Constitution is was there to protect you. It insures insured you that you have had certain rights under the law, including the right to an attorney and the right to have your arguments heard by an impartial Court. Thanks to Dubya and th' boyz, neither Jose Padilla nor you nor I any longer have those rights. If John Ashcroft, at Dubya's behest and without any oversight from the Court or any other impartial branch of government, issues a National Security Letter, you, I or ANY US citizen can now be arrested and held incommunicado for as long as Dubya and Ashcroft wants and the arrested party has no recourse. Since you seem to have forgotten your US history, that's exactly the kind of lack of due process and single-point law, focused then on King George III (Hanover), that our forefathers were escaping, when they created this great nation and signed our Constitution back in 1776. Now, you and others, who have bought into Dubya's fear mongering, would have us cede our rights to a new King George (Bush).
Your thinking is just so 1775.
No but he has you wetting your bed awaiting the "secret police" that you have created in your fertile imagination. The terrorists killed 3000 people. Bush did not. Stop confusing the two.
Which implies, in turn, poor reporting and insufficient editing. Par for the course in today's "journalism", sadly.
Increasingly, it appears that Moussaoui is as he claims: a member of the second wave, primed for a follow-on attack.
Which calls to attention the media's glaring lack of curiosity about who and was the "second wave". And what the follow-on attack was supposed to be. And why it never materialized.
You don't suppose their crashing lack of interest stems from a fear they might uncover something good about the Bush administration, in general, and John Ashcroft, in particular, do you?
ZM looks like a reject who may have been a candidate to be the guy.
Maybe this guy was the guy.
Nothing careless there.
People who aren't citizens don't have the consitutional rights of citizens.
Plain and simple.
And because Padilla was implicated in a plot to destroy a US city, you expect him to be able to walk free.
We are at war. Different rules apply.
In a war you don't capture the enemy and tell him about his right to bear arms and hand him a gun, cause he will shoot you with it.
AppyPappy: The terrorists killed 3000 people. Bush did not.
That isn't the point. The point is that we don't know that Padilla is, in fact, one of those terrorists, of which you speak.
All that we know about Padilla comes from people that report either directly or indirectly, to Dubya. One of the primary reasons for the 6th Amendment's guarantee of due process, is so we have the independent verification of evidence that a Court hearing provides. It's not necessary or even wise for us to know what that evidence is. But, as citizens, we are entitled to know that the voracity of that evidence has been verified by an independent court. That independent verification gives us rather strong assurances against abuse, by one branch of government.
When the administration so steadfastly resists all attempts to get them to present their case in court (even a closed court) it only adds to the concern that the administration's evidence may be flimsy or even non-existent. Their staunch resistance to allowing due process indicates that they must know (or strongly believe) that their evidence is not good enough to stand up in court. I used to believe that Padilla was everything that they said he was and that when the case was eventually presented to the Court, the administration's case would be validated. But, the more they resist letting a court validate their case, the more I have to suspect that there is something underhanded going on. In fact, that's why many people are slowly becoming more and more concerned about this case. Dubya and Ashcroft have done away with due process and independent verification.
Using the same justification that they used on Padilla, they could lock you up, incommunicado, without so much as a court hearing, for you to have a chance to present evidence that they have the wrong man. Over zealous investigators often believe that they have strong evidence against someone, only to learn that it was a case of mistaken identity. An independent court, to verify that evidence, helps protect all of us against such mistakes.
Note that those protections do not apply to the non-citizen detainees, who were taken in battle and are being detained at Gitmo. We are only talking about US citizens and then only about those who were not taken in battle.
I truly hope that Padilla is really what they say he is, because I would hate to think that this was all a mistake or that their evidence against him is gossamer thin. But, guilty or innocent, he is a US citizen and as such, the 6th Amendment must apply to him, just as it does to you and me. If we start limiting which citizens the Constitution protects, then we might as well not have a Constitution, because sooner or later, you and I will be on the list of those who have no rights.
Remember the words of Rev. Martin Niemoller, the Protestant Pastor who spend one and a half years in a NAZI concentration camp (as appears in the Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, page 31636):
When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned.
The point that Niemoller so eloquently made is that when the rights of any citizen are attacked, it behooves us all to be concerned, lest we some day wake up to find that there is nobody left to be concerned as our rights are denied us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.