Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Nixed OBL Indictment for Black Hawk Down
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/03/04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 05/03/2004 10:07:09 AM PDT by kattracks

The Clinton administration prepared a secret indictment of Osama bin Laden in 1995 in connection with the Black Hawk Down attack two years before, but never filed it - a witness before the 9/11 Commission is set to testify on Friday.

"[U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District] Mary Jo White was already working on a secret indictment against bin Laden as early as the late part of 1995," Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday.

Clinton officials, said Ijaz, had "evidence in their hands" implicating bin Laden in the Oct. 1993 Mogadishu attack that killed 18 U.S. Army Rangers.

But they "weren't willing to use it to seek an indictment," he insisted.

Ijaz, who is scheduled to testify before the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors, said the investigation needs to focus on the question, "What caused that indictment not to be handed down?"

As early as 1994, said Ijaz, Sudanese officials had "made it clear [to U.S. officials] that they had very strong indications that bin Laden was closely behind and involved with the Mogadishu terrorist operations."

"At that time [the Clinton administration wasn't] willing to open all of that up," Ijaz maintained.

"But when the early 1996 decision came from the Sudanese to send their defense minister over [to negotiate bin Laden's extradition to the U.S.], there was no question that the Clinton administration was made very clear that bin Laden had casual ties in real terms to the group that killed our 18 [Rangers] in Black Hawk Down."

"Had they been able to take advantage of [Sudan's 1994 offer to share intelligence on bin Laden], the Clinton Justice Department could have indicted bin Laden, which would have enabled them to bring him to the United States," Ijaz contended.

In 2002, President Clinton confirmed to a New York business group that Sudan had indeed offered to extradite bin Laden, but explained, "I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

But Ijaz said he personally briefed Clinton on Sudanese evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the Mogadishu attack.

"I took it directly to the president," he told Malzberg. "I put it on the table. I did it because the Sudanese were only able to do it at the lower levels of our government because nobody wanted to listen to them."

"And one of the things I'm going to tell the 9/11 Commission next Friday," the one-time White House operative warned, "is precisely what happened in my conversation with Bill Clinton personally, where I told him these things were possible - and what he said to me."

Though Ijaz has said he hopes to eventually testify in public, he's not leaving it up to the 9/11 Commission to get the word out.

"It's going to shock the nation when I bring all this out in a book - precisely how ignorant these people were about what they were doing," he told Malzberg.

Get Steve Malzberg's exclusive NewsMax.com column emailed directly to you at www.newsmax.com/malzberg.



TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; clintonfailures; clintonlegacy; coverup; impeachedx42; whitewash; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

1 posted on 05/03/2004 10:07:09 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ALOHA RONNIE
Don't miss this.
2 posted on 05/03/2004 10:08:23 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
"OBL" ping
3 posted on 05/03/2004 10:09:46 AM PDT by thackney (Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"It's going to shock the nation when I bring all this out in a book - precisely how ignorant these people were about what they were doing," he told Malzberg.

I too am stunned by how incompetent the Clinton administration was.

4 posted on 05/03/2004 10:12:06 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Arkancide
5 posted on 05/03/2004 10:18:26 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Only difference between the liberals and the Nazis is that the liberals love the Communists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I wonder what else is under that rug.
6 posted on 05/03/2004 10:19:48 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Why isn't Ijaz testifying in public? What doesn't the witch hunt committee want the public to hear?
8 posted on 05/03/2004 10:21:09 AM PDT by kevkrom (The John Kerry Songbook: www.imakrom.com/kerrysongs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If nothing else, this might tell us that Clinton had OBL on the wrong side of the "wall". If he was in the "criminal" side, then info developed about his terrorist intentions could not be communicated to the intelligence people.
9 posted on 05/03/2004 10:22:47 AM PDT by Henk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bump!! Dynamite-- if it only gets some legs!!
10 posted on 05/03/2004 10:22:59 AM PDT by BobFromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Mansour needs to stay away from parks and small aircraft until several copies of his book are stashed with a number of people. Of course, one guy (Jerry Parks?) was gunned down driving in Arkansas.
11 posted on 05/03/2004 10:24:17 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
.

MONSOOR IJAZ gets PRIVATE 9/11 Testimony, demands IN PUBLIC

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117043/posts







Remember the Lost and Suffering on September 11, 2001

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33

.

12 posted on 05/03/2004 10:26:02 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I agree with you about the appearance of the Clinton administration's incompetence. However, I offer two other possibilities as to why he might not be too eager to get OBL.

1. He is a married politician who cannot keep his britches up. That simple fact makes him a very inviting target for blackmail. Because of the consequences, it's never "just about sex" for someone in his position.

2. Saddam was spreading lots of money around with the UN's corrupted Oil for Food program. The dollar amounts are staggering and I would not be a bit surprised to find Clinton getting some of that money. If he would take some "campaign donations" from the Chicoms, then why not from Saddam? Taking out OBL wouldn't keep Saddam's money coming in, either directly to Clinton or to his buddies.

Just some thoughts...

13 posted on 05/03/2004 10:27:38 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But.. Bubba Slick said he didn't accept the offer of Osama on a platter because as of 1996 Osama hadn't yet committed a crime against the US.
Bubba can only say that if he feels the deaths of US servicemen by terrorism is not a crime.
14 posted on 05/03/2004 10:27:51 AM PDT by Darksheare (Fortune for the day: I call upon the gods of STERNO and MATCHLIGHT to take care of the evil DUers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Ijaz's general point about the incompetence of the last administration is a good one, but on this issue I don't see what the big deal is.

If the Clinton administration had handed down a criminal indictment in the aftermath of Somalia, I think everyone who lurks on this site would have been f#&%ing outraged.

15 posted on 05/03/2004 10:29:12 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why am I not surprised?
16 posted on 05/03/2004 10:30:30 AM PDT by Wneighbor (Texas. Land of opportunity! No restrictor plates here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why was dear Billy protecting the KLA in Kosovo? Why did Gorelick destroy domestic security a month before the Oklahoma City bombing? Why did Billy refuse to arrest bin Laden? Why, indeed.

Is the Socialist Internationale working with the terrorists?

17 posted on 05/03/2004 10:30:49 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
when I bring all this out in a book

As much as we WANT to believe the worst about the Clintons, I think we should show the same reservations as some of the hacks who are writing books to smear President Bush. This could be just so much trash.

18 posted on 05/03/2004 10:32:00 AM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Wing
ping
19 posted on 05/03/2004 10:39:08 AM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Henk
Is this why Gorelich refused recommendations to change policy concerning the "wall"?

(New) Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'

20 posted on 05/03/2004 10:43:17 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson