Confessions of a Terrorist

Confessions of a Terrorist Author Gerald Posner claims an al-Qaeda leader made explosive allegations while under interrogation By JOHANNA MCGEARY By March 2002, the terrorist called Abu Zubaydah was one of the most wanted men on earth. A leading member of Osama bin Laden's brain trust, he is thought to have been in operational control of al-Qaeda's millennium bomb plots as well as the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. After the spectacular success of the airliner assaults on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, he continued to devise terrorist plans.

Seventeen months ago, the U.S. finally grabbed Zubaydah in Pakistan and has kept him locked up in a secret location ever since. His name has probably faded from most memories. It's about to get back in the news. A new book by Gerald Posner says Zubaydah has made startling revelations about secret connections linking Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and bin Laden.

Details of that terrorism triangle form the explosive final chapter in Posner's examination of who did what wrong before Sept. 11. Most of his new book, Why America Slept (Random House), is a lean, lucid retelling of how the CIA, FBI and U.S. leaders missed a decade's worth of clues and opportunities that if heeded, Posner argues, might have forestalled the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Posner is an old hand at revisiting conspiracy theories. He wrote controversial assessments dismissing those surrounding the J.F.K. and Martin Luther King Jr. assassinations. And the Berkeley-educated lawyer is adept at marshaling an unwieldy mass of information—most of his sources are other books and news stories—into a pattern made tidy and linear by hindsight. His indictment of U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies covers well-trodden ground, though sometimes the might-have-beens and could-have-seens are stretched thin. The stuff that is going to spark hot debate is Chapter 19, an account—based on Zubaydah's claims as told to Posner by "two government sources" who are unnamed but "in a position to know"—of what two countries allied to the U.S. did to build up al-Qaeda and what they knew before that September day.

Zubaydah's capture and interrogation, told in a gripping narrative that reads like a techno-thriller, did not just take down one of al-Qaeda's most wanted operatives but also unexpectedly provided what one U.S. investigator told Posner was "the Rosetta stone of 9/11 ... the details of what (Zubaydah) claimed was his 'work' for senior Saudi and Pakistani officials." The tale begins at 2 a.m. on March 28, 2002, when U.S. surveillance pinpointed Zubaydah in a two-story safe house in Pakistan. Commandos rousted out 62 suspects, one of whom was seriously wounded while trying to flee. A Pakistani intelligence officer and hastily made voiceprints quickly identified the injured man as Zubaydah.

Posner elaborates in startling detail how U.S. interrogators used drugs—an unnamed "quick-on, quick-off" painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum—in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner, cia men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.

Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-bin Laden triangle.

Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was "blessed by the Saudis."

Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior isi agents and Taliban officials. There Turki promised, writes Posner, that "more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden's extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom." In Posner's stark judgment, the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade." Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named.

The last eight paragraphs of the book set up a final startling development. Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another. On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed was felled by a heart attack at age 43. One day later Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, was killed in what was called a high-speed car accident. The last member of the trio, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, officially "died of thirst" while traveling east of Riyadh one week later. And seven months after that, Mushaf Ali Mir, by then Pakistan's Air Marshal, perished in a plane crash in clear weather over the unruly North-West Frontier province, along with his wife and closest confidants.

Without charging any skulduggery (Posner told TIME they "may in fact be coincidences"), the author notes that these deaths occurred after cia officials passed along Zubaydah's accusations to Riyadh and Islamabad. Washington, reports Posner, was shocked when Zubaydah claimed that "9/11 changed nothing" about the clandestine marriage of terrorism and Saudi and Pakistani interests, "because both Prince Ahmed and Mir knew that an attack was scheduled for American soil on that day." They couldn't stop it or warn the U.S. in advance, Zubaydah said, because they didn't know what or where the attack would be. And they couldn't turn on bin Laden afterward because he could expose their prior knowledge. Both capitals swiftly assured Washington that "they had thoroughly investigated the claims and they were false and malicious." The Bush Administration, writes Posner, decided that "creating an international incident and straining relations with those regional allies when they were critical to the war in Afghanistan and the buildup for possible war with Iraq, was out of the question."

The book seems certain to kick up a political and diplomatic firestorm. The first question everyone will ask is, Is it true? And many will wonder if these matters were addressed in the 28 pages censored from Washington's official report on 9/11. It has long been suggested that Saudi Arabia probably had some kind of secret arrangement to stave off fundamentalists within the kingdom. But this appears to be the first description of a repeated, explicit quid pro quo between bin Laden and a Saudi official. Posner told TIME he got the details of Zubaydah's interrogation and revelations from a U.S. official outside the cia at a "very senior Executive Branch level" whose name we would probably know if he told it to us. He did not. The second source, Posner said, was from the cia, and he gave what Posner viewed as general confirmation of the story but did not repeat the details. There are top Bush Administration officials who have long taken a hostile view of Saudi behavior regarding terrorism and might want to leak Zubaydah's claims. Prince Turki, now Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Britain, did not respond to Posner's letters and faxes.

There's another unanswered question. If Turki and Mir were cutting deals with bin Laden, were they acting at the behest of their governments or on their own? Posner avoids any direct statement, but the book implies that they were doing official, if covert, business. In the past, Turki has admitted—to TIME in November 2001, among others—attending meetings in '96 and '98 but insisted they were efforts to persuade Sudan and Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden. The case against Pakistan is cloudier. It is well known that Islamist elements in the isi were assisting the Taliban under the government of Nawaz Sharif. But even if Mir dealt with bin Laden, he could have been operating outside official channels.

Finally, the details of Zubaydah's drug-induced confessions might bring on charges that the U.S. is using torture on terrorism suspects. According to Posner, the Administration decided shortly after 9/11 to permit the use of Sodium Pentothal on prisoners. The Administration, he writes, "privately believes that the Supreme Court has implicitly approved using such drugs in matters where public safety is at risk," citing a 1963 opinion.

For those who still wonder how the attacks two years ago could have happened, Posner's book provides a tidy set of answers. But it opens up more troubling questions about crucial U.S. allies that someone will now have to address.

I agree with you mostly, however in all fairness, Al Qaeda is a mutation of the Mujahadeen that formed during the Soviet-Afghan conflict. The ideology and training (encouraged, funded and assisted by the US) was brought back to Saudia Arabia and Pakistan by the mujahadeen volunteers from these and other Arab countries, morphed into an evil arm of the Wahabiist movement, and spread among North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and Central Asia.
In fact, the US is as responsible for the "CONSTRUCTion" of Al Qaeda as Saudia Arabia is. This is a primary of example of the old maxim, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Currently, most people misunderstand the Saudi's and the Pakistani's lack of persecution of Al Qaeda, as a tacit approval of the terrorist group's actions. This is not the case however. One of Al Qaeda's primary goals is to overthrow the Saud family and the Pakistani dictatorship in favor of an Islamic government (not just here but any other secular government in the world). There are indeed element's of the Saud family, as well as rouge agents of the Pakistani ISI that are sympathizers of, and collusionists with, Al Qaeda. But these folks are what many would call "double agents" or "sabatouers". They serve their governments, but their heart lies with a conflicting cause.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's reluctance to confront Al Qaeda, before and after 9/11, are more out of fear of causing popular uprisings in their own states, rather than approval of Al Qaeda's activities. That is why the Bush administration has had to walk a very delicate tight rope in dealing with these two countries. If we were to encourage the overthrow of these governments (irregardless of how distasteful they are), you would likely place the world's oil reserves (Saudia Arabia) and nuclear weapons (Pakistan) into the hands of these islamo-facists. This would destabilize the world and only strengthen Bin Laden's (who in my opinion died in Tora Bora) followers and make this war much more costly.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are seen as Robin Hood and his Merry Men to many in the Islamic world, especially in Saudia Arabia, Egypt and some other truly dispicable parts of the world. Life is not good in these places, the rulers are cruel and life is often short and brutal. I by no means say that the US is responsible for fixing this, any more than any other country of the world, or is somehowow responsible for causing this. That is just the way it is.

The Sauds tried to appease the group to ensure their rule by refocusing the groups anger at "western imperialism". The same technique has been used in Pakistan and in Egypt as well as many other Islamic majority countries and will likely have the same result of backfiring.

The recent activities of Al Qaeda in Riyadh does appear to have changed the Royal Family's view of appeasement of these monsters. They appear to be truly ready to take steps to limit their power and influence in the Kingdom now.

Regardless of how much we dislike these governments, they are the lesser of the two evils, which has typically been the unfortunate choice of American presidential administrations when dealing with the middle east.

In summation, Saudia Arabia is the rock which these cockroaches may have most recently crawled out from under. But the rock is not the problem, and this particular rock happens to contain the majority of the World's oil. Bin Laden would have delighted in getting to see the Saud family overthrown.

I'd like to respond to your response, not to be critical, but I feel since this has been such a passion of mine for so long, one that has taken me to many personal visits to the witnesses to this event, and interviews with many others who were involved in some of the investigations, I feel I should explain to you why I react to Posner like this. I almost feel stronger about him than I do about Clinton. And that's pretty strong. (I spent much of my meager resources traveling to the March for Justice that FR sponsored.) I would like to address some of your post. It represents a reasonable view, but I have some comments based on personal experience with Posner and some of the people he maligns in his books.

I haven't read his work on MLK

save yourself the time...same crap, same conclusion...he likes to ignore the fact that a recent trial established that a conspiracy was involved that did not involve James Earl Ray as a shooter. And the gun tested with a 65% chance that it was not the gun used

but I've read his book on the JFK assassination, and unless one is a conspiracy nut

I tell you what...I'll let you call me a conspiracy nut if you agree to be called a coincidence nut. Use the "nut" word and you have lost all sense of credibility and open-mindedness.

who feels the need to demonize anyone who pokes holes in favorite conspiracy theories

I don't "demonize", I just don't like liars, and Posner is a liar.He was involved in a debate a few years back with Jim Lesar, the lawyer largely responsible for getting the legislation through Congress that finally opened many of the millions of pages on the assassination that had been kept classified on the case. He told Lesar, "I know that the case is not closed on the JFK case but my publisher liked the title." I am sorry, that loses a lot of respect in my book. The first chapter of the book uses the word "smirk" when referring to Oswald dozens of times. Like his facial expressions were evidence. Nowhere does he mention that Oswald's CIA 201 file, when finally released, was several boxes large...this is mostly material collected BEFORE the assn. Of course he couldn't have metioned it because he book was written BEFORE the files were opened. Meticulous only if you don't read the research...sorry.

it's hard to escape the conclusion that in fact Posner is one of the most painstakingly thorough, intellectually honest investigators alive.

Actually, it's rather easy to escape the conclusion. I think his honesty is addressed in the statement above. For more on his "honesty" you can read the first hand report on the man with the most gov't documents in his possession on the case, Harold Weisberg, in his book "Case Open". Weisberg, by the way, hates the conspiracy theorists as well. He is critical of both sides. He is a research and makes no conclusions on the case other than there were multiple shooters in the Plaza that day...a conclusion that the last government investigation came to: The House Select Committee on Assassinations. But then, that doesn't fit Posner's agenda; or his editor's. BTW, the "studies" that Posner touts in the book as his own "proving" the single-bulls--t theory aren't his. They were created for a mock trial by Failure Analysis Co. They were using this as a demonstration of a software that they were trying to sell to insurance companies to recreate traffic accidents. What the "honest" Mr. Posner FAILED to mention was that the President of Failure Analysis presented a recreation at the same mock trial "proving" that the head shot that killed the President came from the right front and was a dum-dum or frangible bullet that exploded his head, an event that matches the surviving X-rays which show a blizzard of metal in Kennedy's skull. But then that meticulous researcher neglected to mention that presentation as well. Cuz Oswald couldn't have fired that shot. Posner doesn't like evidence that gets in the way of his conclusions.

He's frank about conflicting evidence

When he chooses the lame theories that those in the research community have already shot down themselves

things which can't be known

something he has become an expert on

gaps in various theories (including his own), and opposing claims or explanations. He doesn't overstate his case or jump to conclusions.

Um...what would you call "Case Closed" when the files hadn't even been opened yet? That's a jump to a conclusion. Sheesh.

In fact, for the most part he simply spends years gathering massive amounts of evidence (often unearthing long-lost reports or interviews, or finding still-living witnesses to re-interview)

while ignoring even more of all of the above. I talked to witness after witness who was pissed off at him for misquoting them or leaving their "inconvenient" evidence out. You must understand, I realize that the average person would read his book and say, "Gee, this is really well done, well researched, and puts a lot of this nut stuff to rest." It's like saying Bush will get elected because he can defeat Al Sharpton. Posner sets up straw men to knock down. The serious research doesn't get a voice in his work. Ask yourself why? The answer is in the title. This book was commissioned by the defenders of the Warren Commission lie because Stone's film was rocking their world. It's been cover for certain former US Gov't officials and the mass mediawhores like Cronkite and Jennings ever since. Think about THAT company...

then organizing it and presenting it in a coherent manner, letting the reader draw their own conclusions.

...by calling the book "Case Closed." More like "Mind Closed."

And thanks to his incredibly thorough job in "Case Closed" (his book on the JFK assassination), his title is entirely justified. I have, quite literally, never seen such an immensely well-researched, comprehensive, convincing book on a historical dispute.

Sorry to disagree, but then again, that is why I like this board, you can find all kinds of opinions here, I just found that the facts led me to a different conclusion. And believe me, I didn't want to end up with the conclusion I have ended up with. It puts me in agreement with some of the lefties in our land, and I always found that very uncomfortable. I found myself interviewing one of the founders of the SDS. I found myself in with some serious Bush haters. But then there was Craig Roberts, a true right-winger if I have ever seen one. And John Newman is straight Army, and one helluva researcher.

You can see why he worked for DIA for so long, his three and an half hour presentation at a 1999 conference with over 600 newly-declassfied documents showing the reaction in CIA and FBI in the hours from the assassination to the murder of LHO was gripping. When you realize the whole key to the assassination is that Oswald was impersonated at the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City the month before the assassination, you realize how the assassination went down, and how so many honest people were put in the position of having to support the single assassin line when they KNEW it was baloney. When you realize that the surveillance tape of the fake Oswald was played by FBI agents while Oswald was still alive, and that Hoover KNEW that someone had impersonated Oswald in order to set him up for the assassination, everything you know about those events change. THis isn't some theory, the documentation is there. Right down to the FBI documents showing the surveillance tape being flown into Dallas at 4 am the day after the assassination. But no one cares anymore. Because no one will publish a book about it in the mainstream...or cover it in a serious show...all because Posner's book accomplished what they want the public to believe: Case Closed/Mind Closed. And so, more truth down the history hole.

If you want to know where the documentation is leading us, I suggest you start with "Oswald and the CIA"... On the medical analysis, I would start with "Assassination Science" by James Fetzer, PhD.

I shall, after having determined for myself that this source is extremely credible, fairminded, and meticulous.

As a conservative who has over 200 books on the subject and who has talked to many of the witnesses as well, Posner fails that test. sorry. I promise not to post on this subject again, better to stick to Ahhhnuld vs. McClintock on this board. ;)

Best to you, K

Wow! Every single one of your statements supports my thesis.

"The latest bombings in Riyad, killed Mohammed al-Blaihed, the son of Riyadh's deputy governor Abdullah al-Blaihedh." He was collateral damage (not the target) in an attack on a compound housing western civilians.

"A recent bust in Mecca uncovered a plot to set off explosives in Mecca that were targeting various royal family members and government figures." A convenient story not supported by facts in the hands of the U.S. Saudi makes up all sorts of stories to de-link themselves from AQ. Note that none of the purported attacks EVER occur against the House of Saud.

"Over 3000 people were arrested and over 350 are still in custody I believe. The Saudi police also captured Ali Abdulrachman Saeed al-Faqa'asi Al-Ghamdi who is widely thought to have been protected by various members of the Saud family." Thank you for making my point that Al Qaeda is "protected by vaious members of the Saud family."

"Bin Laden has stated over and over his opposition to the Saud Royal family and the presence of US troops on Saudi land." I maintain that these words are the plausible deniability of AQ and SA, pre-arranged to send up a smokescreen. I have no evidence of actions to the contrary.

Al Qaeda will not attack targets that affect the common people of Saudia Arabia, such as oil loading facilities or saline removal facilities which are examples of "critical regime targets". Thank you for confirming that AQ is unwilling to attack the Saudi regime in any substantive way.

"Even Al Qaeda has constraints it must follow to remain in good standing with the members of the Saud family who secretly support it."

So, we agree. AQ is essentially a construct of the Saudi royal family, has no willingness to attack its progenitors. Thanks for your support of my arguments.

I really don't mean to be overly argumentative with you. But I really think you should do some more detailed research on the subject. Im sure you are well educated and well-intentioned, but the subject is much more complicated than you make it out.

For Al Qaeda to attack oil production facilities or salinazation plants, would be the equivalent of Robin Hood destroying the well that provides the water for not only the Sherrif of Nottingham, but the people of Nottingham. Al Qaeda is not intent on destroying Saudia Arabia or any other muslim country. They don't want to destroy it, they want to "save" it from the "infidels". In addition, it is not in their interest to overtly attack the royal family as it would bring additional pressure on them when the western world is already rightly seeking their extinction. In SA, Pakistan and Egypt, they are using the "hearts and minds" approach to accomplishing their wacko goals. Their is a difference in their eyes between killing a muslim and killing an "infidel". This explains the lack of violence you reference.

There are indeed members of the Saud family that support Al Qaeda, but these are the exception and not the rule. You need to understand the dynamics of the Saud family to understand that statement. There are 100s on top of 100s of crown princes in the royal family who have watched their stipends get smaller and smaller and are disuaded from keeping their loyalty to the family. Some are also extremists or purists who have gotten into bed with terrorists or other corrupt organizations inside Saudia Arabia to subsidize the power they once held. But if you call the royal family "terrorists" because of these exceptions, it would be the equivalent of one of your 3rd cousins supporting terrorism and me claiming that your entire family were terrorists. It is easy to generalize, but it is not accurate or helpful to generalize.

I would recommend an article to you printed in the Atlantic Monthly Journal in the June addition I believe named "The Fall of the House of Saud." The author lies somewhere in between both of our opinions and tends to tilt more towards your opinion. But you seem like an intelligent person who I think could appreciate the information and it may make you see this in a different light despite the author's leaning towards your opinion. The situation is really not as simple as most make it out to be. And Al Qaeda is not really that scary when you look at the potential impact that could arise if the Saud family were to be vanquished. The Saud family really doesent need to be hurried to be finished, it is dying anyway. But you should understand the impact that this will have on the world irregardles if we hurry it or we let it happen naturally.

Is this as stated in previous paragraphs, as told by Zubaydah to two unnamed sources allegedly "in the position to know?" (two unnamed sources are supposed to impress us more than just one I suppose.)

If the info is secondhand from Zubaydah, like from a low level DOD lawyer or some such, then it's silly to buy the tale because of course, Zubayda and al Qaeda's goal is the overthrow of the Saudi government to make room for even more extrreme wahhabbists. It's suspect info since it is unverifiable, and comes from an al Qaeda operative. But if not from the unnamed sources' relating of Zubaydah's words, how does Posner know this interrogation was carried out in this manner, or what Zubayda's reactions really were, given that interrogations are carried out by a limited and tight knit set of interrogators who, like executioners or other people with jobs the public might view as messy or unpleasant (or who prisoner's friends might seek to carry out revenge) , aren't the type be publicity hounds waiting anxiously to leak to any presstitute or self-styled investigative reporter who comes along, particularly when such leaks will be easily traceable to the leaker owing to the samll number of people privy to the info? Did he consult the Psychic Friends Network?

If he has a source at all his source is a low-level lawyer or two bored with going over transcripts and looking for some excitement by telling tales to make themselves feel more important and in the know than they actually are. And by spilling something wholly bogus, are not likely to be caught and can conitinue to play the game for a long while.

The one thing that isn't leaking are the interrogators- they would be narrowed down and nailed for security reasons in a heartbeat even if they were foolishly inclined to chat. IOW, the only ones truly "in the know" aren't available to journalists, and journalists have no info on who's doing the interrogations and who isn't, so no way to verify if anyone is really "in the know," verses who is just blowing smoke.

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.