Posted on 08/24/2005 4:58:53 PM PDT by Enchante
The background: On April 21, 2001, the CIA's liaison officer at the U.S. Embassy in Prague was briefed by the Czech counterintelligence service (known by its Czech acronym, BIS) about an extraordinary development in a spy case that concerned both the United States and the Czech Republic. The subject of the briefing was Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the consul at Iraq's embassy in Prague.
....
So when al-Ani replaced Salim at the Iraq Embassy in Prague in 1999, both the United States and the Czech Republic wanted him closely watched in case he had a similar assignment. The BIS handled the surveillance through its own full-time teams and its network of part-time "watchers" at hotels, restaurants, and other likely locations. Then, on April 8, 2001, a BIS watcher saw al-Ani meeting in a restaurant outside Prague with an Arab man in his 20s. This set off alarm bells because a BIS informant in the Arab community had provided information indicating that the person with whom al-Ani was meeting was a visiting "student" from Hamburg—and one who was potentially dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
***Ping-a-ling***
Thanks for post. I think some elements of it where in one or two of the hyperlinks folks provided us last week on the various Able Danger threads. I think I remember reading about the Iraqi Embassador to the Cheks in the 9/11 report. Have to revisit that report soon.
The 9/11 Report discounts the meeting in Ch 7 saying "[t]he available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting." While the 9/11 Commission may have missed that ABLE DANGER information, it is obvious that they investigated the Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection in the Czech Republic (they didn't overlook it). Do you think they lied about this item (since they deliberately and thoroughly investigated it)?
One thing that strikes me as potentially extremely significant in this article's account (which I had not seen before today) is that Epstein (the author) says the Czechs had reported to the CIA the supposed April 9, 2001 meeting in Prague between the Iraqi agent and the "Hamburg student" AT THE TIME.... i.e., in April 2001. Now it could be Epstein doesn't have his facts right, but if in fact this is a contemporaneous report 5 months before 9/11 then it was not triggered by the fact that Atta's name and face became famous after 9/11 -- it was solely triggered by the surveillance on the Iraqi agent.
Yes. In my Adobe Acrobate Reader screen after loading the 9/11
Com report. Page 245. If you have the document on your system you can do a search of Prague. A few pages will be found. The bold faced subtile for that section is:
Atta's Alleged Trip to Prague.
......Shortly after 9/11, the source reported having seen
Atta meet with Ahmad Kahlil Ibrahim Samir Al Ani, an Iraqi
Diploat, at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on April 9, 2001, at
11:00 A.M. This information was passed to CIA headquarters.
The U.S. Legal attache ("Legat") in Praque, the representative of the FBI, met with the Czech service's source. After meeting................blah blah blah.....
So this particular meeting between the Iraqi Embassador and Atta are mentioned in the 9/11 Report.
Right, but the 9/11 O-mission completely discounts it, says it must be a false report as relates to Atta because he was (they say) in the USA on April 9, 2001....
What we really need is to put Jamie Gorelick under oath, as well as every other member of the commission and its staff.... not to mention a lot of FBI, CIA, DIA people, etc. I don't think the 9/11 O-mission comes close to any thorough and proper treatment of these issues, and we need to find out why (we have lots of suspicions here, but we need all the facts).
Don't forget they also had the "solemn word" of KSM and Ramzi bin-Alshahib that Atta had never been in Prague...
"One thing that strikes me as potentially extremely significant ........."
I would not have typed the little piece had I noticed the Chapter 7 link in html format offered prior to my post.
If I can resolve your question as to the validity of the reporters writing I will respond, else hah hah, figure I am scratching my head until I go completely bold.
Yeah, like KSM and Ramzi-baby would never have any motives to lie, sow confusion and misdirection, etc.
I hope those guys (and all terrorists prisoners) are regularly re-interrogated in different ways, by different interrogators, etc. Also Ramzi Yousef and this Iraqi guy from Prague..... all these guys may still have loads of important info if we could somehow get it out of them, and we should be comparing their stories over and over and over again, looking for changes and inconsistencies, etc.
Another factor to consider is that a Prague meeting could have been held with another "Hamburg student" who was part of Atta's cell, but not Atta himself. Supposedly the Czechs do have confirmation from the Iraqi's daybook that there was such an appointment with "Hamburg student".... There was a whole nest of Al Qaeda vermin around Atta in Hamburg.... what if it was Ramzi Binsalbib, who never did manage to get to the USA (denied visa applications) but who certainly was part of the same Al Qaeda network with Atta). Or it could have been someone else in the cell......
Following up on your question:
"Now it could be Epstein doesn't have his facts right, but if in fact this is a contemporaneous report 5 months before 9/11 then it was not triggered by the fact that Atta's name and face became famous after 9/11 -- it was solely triggered by the surveillance on the Iraqi agent."
I am going around in circles. Got my local version of the 9/11 Report via. Adobe reader plus going to the Chapter 7 link in on this Freeper Post.
The author seems to try to discredit the fact that the FBI had located Atta and his roommates between the Virgina Beach to Florida movements.
HOWEVER.....clear in the 9/11 Report we find:
"The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on April 11, where he and Shehhi leased an apartment."
So clearly according to the 9/11 report using a bank serv. photo they had him placed in time and place. So the author is ducking the whole story for whatever reason.
Beyond that I think I can't help resolve your total question .
"Another factor to consider is that a Prague meeting could have been held with another "Hamburg student" who was part of Atta's cell, but not Atta himself."
A distinct possibility. Clearly though we must be carefull in what we read in these media reports. They can get 80% right and then miss something quite important or intensionally left out. To much to try to piece together for me. Hang in there.
Another possibility that I have not seen seriously considered anywhere is that the "Hamburg student" meeting reported by the Czechs and listed in the Iraqi agent's datebook may well have been with ANOTHER member of the cell -- there were quite a few of them, after all, including Ramzi Binsalbib (who was a major figure in the plot but who did not manage to get into the USA in time for 9/11). There is some very interesting info at these links (the 9/11 O-mission and a lot of the US intel bureaucracy seems to accept Richard Clarke over Laurie Mylroie on just about everything, but I find Mylroie seems better informed and more intelligent/analytical than the great Richard Clarke):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133186/posts#comment?q=1
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3126
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133186/posts#comment?q=1
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3126
Thanks will examine and bookmark/saveaspage them.
Right on! Gorelick(r) was there to make sure the truth regarding clintoon's mishandling of things never got out of hand. And Sandy Burgler was her accomplice...
"Right on! Gorelick(r) was there to make sure the truth regarding clintoon's mishandling of things never got out of hand."
Least we forget the real squinty eyed one Richard Ben Venista.
Mister Slicks lawyer, they don't get more slick. Call him Mr. Teflon and one is not far off the mark.
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.