Did We Know What Was Coming?

The September 11th terrorist attacks required extensive planning. Our intelligence services knew enough to have responded better.

John Philip Walker Lindh, better known as the "American Taliban," is accused of conspiring with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network to kill American citizens. According to the federal criminal complaint, Lindh's role in the terrorist conspiracy "began in May or June of 2001." It was then that Lindh "agreed to attend an al-Qaeda training camp for additional and extensive military training, knowing that America and its citizens were the enemies of bin Laden and al-Qaeda and that a principal purpose of al-Qaeda was to fight and kill Americans." While at the training camp, Lindh allegedly learned that "bin Laden had sent forth some fifty people to carry out twenty suicide terrorist operations against the United States and Israel."

Significantly, the indictment does not accuse Lindh of actively participating in the terrorist plot. During a visit with senior al-Qaeda official Abu Mohammad Al-Masri, the self-exiled American was invited to take part in "operations against the United States and Israel." Lindh allegedly declined to carry out terrorist missions, choosing instead to fight on the front lines of the Taliban's civil war with its Northern Alliance rivals.

The case against Lindh rests heavily on proving that he had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's plot to commit mass murder. To make that case it is not necessary to prove that Lindh actually killed Americans, or that he had specific knowledge regarding the target of the attack, or the means by which it would be carried out. The burden on the prosecution is to validate its conspiracy theory against Lindh by proving that the defendant knew the attack was coming, and freely chose to associate with the terrorist cabal who plotted the atrocity.

Federal authorities will be much more eager to prosecute Lindh than to question how he was able to penetrate to the very core of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. This eccentric, alienated California teenager fascinated with radical Islam managed to do what highly skilled intelligence professionals supposedly could not: Insinuate himself so deeply into al-Qaeda - even meeting "The Evil One" himself on one occasion - that he obtained critical intelligence about the forthcoming attack on America.

Lindh stands accused of hideous crimes. But from the federal government's perspective, Lindh is dangerous for another reason: His success as an infiltrator underscores the consummate failure of our hugely expensive "intelligence community" to protect our nation from foreign attack.

But the trial could pose an even graver threat to the intelligence community if it prompts the public to think seriously about the charges against the "American Taliban." What if it can be demonstrated that federal authorities responsible for defending our nation knew as much about the impending terrorist attack as Lindh did? What would be the political, moral, and legal liabilities of officials who were in possession of such knowledge, and failed to act upon it?

As we will show, the feds knew no later than June that an attack from bin Laden was coming. By August it had identified several key co-conspirators, and had one in custody. And two days after the attack Chicago attorney David Schippers - a lifelong Democrat who was chief investigative counsel in the Clinton impeachment - disclosed that he had attempted to warn Attorney General John Ashcroft about the coming attack.

As previously reported in this magazine ("OKC Bombing: Precursor to 9-11?" in our January 28, 2002 issue), Schippers told a Pittsburgh radio audience on September 13th that he had learned from FBI agents in Minnesota and Chicago that a massive terrorist attack had been planned for lower Manhattan. He had developed this information six weeks before the Black Tuesday atrocity. However, Justice Department officials repeatedly spurned Schippers' attempts to provide the information to Ashcroft; one of them reportedly sneered, "We don't start our investigations at the top." This is a curious objection, given Schippers' credentials and professional standing - and given that Ashcroft himself had warned in June that "Americans are a high-priority target for terrorists."

Three veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed to THE NEW AMERICAN that the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11th. Because these individuals face possible personal or professional retaliation, they agreed to speak with us on condition of anonymity. Two of them, however, have expressed a willingness to testify before Congress regarding the views they have shared with us.

"I don't buy the idea that we didn't know what was coming," a former FBI official with extensive counter-terrorism experience commented to THE NEW AMERICAN. "Within 24 hours [of the attack] the Bureau had about 20 people identified, and photos were sent out to the news media. Obviously this information was available in the files and somebody was sitting on it." This former FBI agent noted that before Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "Twentieth Hijacker," was detained in Minneapolis, he had undergone flight instruction in Oklahoma, "where we know that Arab terrorist networks have been established for many years."

An active federal counter-terrorism investigator told THE NEW AMERICAN that it was well known "all over the Bureau, how these [warnings] were ignored by Washington.... All indications are that this information came from some of [the Bureau's] most experienced guys, people who have devoted their lives to this kind of work. But their warnings were placed in a pile in someone's office in Washington.... In some cases, these field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th. So we were all holding our breath … hoping that the situation would be remedied."

According to the former FBI agent quoted above, the Bureau could have prevented the Black Tuesday massacre if it had adequately investigated the Middle East connection to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.* This assessment is supported by another former FBI agent who spoke with this magazine.

"We knew that there were Arab terrorist groups working in Oklahoma during the mid-1990s, but nothing was done about it," he recalls. "We were constantly getting information about terrorist groups working in the area, and it would be put in what was called a ‘zero file.' Once you sent it in, you were never told to act on it. And you were never told to follow up on it." Nor were the agents allowed to share that intelligence with state and local police: "We had a dissemination form that we could use in sharing intelligence with local law enforcement. We'd have to get clearance to give the information out. And this led to a favorite saying of administrative people in the Bureau: ‘This is on a need to know basis, and the locals don't need to know.'"

"This is pretty appalling," comments the first former agent. "The FBI has had access to this information since at least 1997. We're obviously not doing our job. I never expected to see something like this happen in our country, but in a way I wasn't shocked when it did. There's got to be more to this than we can see - high-level people whose careers are at stake, and don't want the truth coming out.... What agenda is someone following? Obviously, people had to know - there had to be people who knew this information was being circulated. People like [the Black Tuesday terrorists] don't just move in and out of the country undetected. If somebody in D.C. is taking this information and burying it - and it's very easy to control things from D.C. - then this problem goes much, much deeper.... It's terrible to think this, but this must have been allowed to happen as part of some other agenda."

When one talks of hidden agendas behind the official story of the Black Tuesday attack, he can expect to be denounced as a "conspiracy theorist." In fact, President Bush himself condemned such supposedly irresponsible talk during his November 10th address to the UN General Assembly. "We must speak the truth about terror," insisted the president. "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

The president's denunciation of "conspiracy theorists" was echoed in a January 14th "news analysis" by James Rosen, a Washington correspondent for the McClatchy News Service. "Even in the wake of unspeakable evil, some people can't leave bad enough alone," groused Rosen. "While the vast majority of Americans accept their government's claim that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network launched the attacks, a number of boisterous malcontents are peddling alternative explanations."

It hardly detracts from the guilt of bin Laden and his henchmen to point out that there are plausible "alternative explanations" to the government's account of Black Tuesday - namely, that our conscientious federal law enforcement and security agencies were caught completely off-guard by an attack they could not prevent. There is evidence that the feds knew of bin Laden's impending terrorist strike no later than June. And we know for certain that by August, federal authorities had identified several key co-conspirators, and had one in custody.

On June 23rd, air industry officials received a remarkably detailed warning about a threat from Osama bin Laden's terrorist network to use airliners to attack Americans. Citing a report from the Arabic-language MBC satellite television channel, the AirlineBiz.com news service reported: "In recent years, U.S. citizens have found themselves the target of several attacks by the terror network of Osama bin Laden. One such attack involved a plot to destroy 12 U.S. airliners in Asia. A jury found Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the scheme, and two other defendants, guilty on all counts. Yousef is also the alleged mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center...."

The scheme to use jetliners as terrorist weapons, called "Project Bojinka," had been uncovered by police in the Philippines in 1995, and the details had been provided to American law enforcement officials. (See "Could We Have Prevented the Attacks?" in our November 5, 2001 issue.) The significance of bin Laden's threats was not lost upon Bob Monetti, president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which was destroyed by a terrorist bomb in 1988. "I hope the airlines are watching this situation closely," declared Monetti. "The airlines are at risk. They need to take all appropriate measures and counter-measures to ensure the safety of their passengers."

According to the June 23rd AirlineBiz.com report, the Arabic satellite television network MBC claimed that "the next two weeks will witness a big surprise." An MBC reporter who had met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on June 21st predicted that "a severe blow is expected against U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide. There is a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who will strike first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin Laden?" Despite such detailed advance warnings, bin Laden won that "race."

By September 11th, federal authorities not only had 10 weeks' advance notice of an impending attack from bin Laden, they also had one of the alleged plotters in custody. This was acknowledged by CIA Director George Tenet as the 9-11 attack was underway. Amid reports of the suicide hijackings, Tenet was overheard saying: "I wonder if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training." Tenet "was referring to Zacarias Moussaoui, who had been detained in August after attracting suspicion when he sought training at a Minnesota flight school," observed the January 27th Washington Post. After the suspect was taken into custody, "the FBI had asked the CIA and the National Security Agency to run phone traces on Moussaoui, already the subject of a five-inch-thick file in the bureau."

According to the December 29th Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Moussaoui raised suspicions at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Egan [Minnesota]" when he showed up in August for instruction in piloting jumbo jets. He "first raised eyebrows when, during a simple introductory exchange, he said he was from France, but then didn't seem to understand when the instructor spoke French to him," recalled the paper. "Moussaoui then became belligerent and evasive about his background.... In addition, he seemed inept in basic flying procedures, while seeking expensive training on an advanced commercial jet simulator."

Flight school employees "began whispering that he could be a hijacker," reported the February 8th New York Times. John Rosengren, director of operations at the school, recalled that Moussaoui's instructor was "concerned and wondered why someone who was not a pilot and had so little experience was trying to pack so much training into such a short time." "The more he was able to talk to him, the more he decided he was not pilot material," observes Rosengren. In addition, "There was discussion about how much fuel was on board a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit anything."

By this time, Moussaoui's instructor had already scurried to a telephone to call the FBI's Minneapolis office. "Do you realize how serious this is?" he asked an FBI agent during the August 15th phone conversation. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!" The FBI arrested Moussaoui the next day. However, notes the Star-Tribune, "the Minneapolis agents were unable to persuade FBI lawyers in Washington, D.C., to seek a warrant to search his possessions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires evidence that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist group." The frustrated field agents were trying to gather sufficient evidence to get a warrant when Moussaoui's alleged co-conspirators piloted jetliners into the Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

Charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder, Moussaoui is not the only member of the Black Tuesday plot whom federal authorities knew about. On the morning of September 11th, noted the December 30th New York Times, "two people already identified by the government as suspected terrorists boarded separate American Airlines flights from Boston using their own names." Federal officials were also aware of a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour, who had come to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) while studying at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix.

Officials at the school had raised questions about Hanjour's inability to speak English, the international language of aviation. When they expressed concerns to the FAA, the agency stepped in to provide assistance - to Hanjour. According to the Star-Tribune, "An FAA representative sat in on a class to observe Hanjour … and discussed with school officials finding an Arabic-speaking person to help him with his English...." Hanjour returned the favor by plowing American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

As Congress probes the security issues raised by the Black Tuesday attack, the investigation must be framed by a question similar to that dealt with in the "American Taliban" trial: What did our federal security and intelligence agencies know of the impending attack, and when did they know it? Recall that Lindh supposedly learned of the terrorist plot in May or June of last year. Evidence available in the public record makes it clear that the Justice Department and other branches of the federal government were aware of at least as much as Lindh is accused of knowing.

Unfortunately, Congress seems content thus far to defer to the White House's desire to limit the scope and intensity of any inquiries into the tragedy. In meetings and phone conversations with congressional leaders, President Bush and Vice President Cheney "expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) told CNN. Daschle promised that he would "limit the scope and overall review of what happened."

Congressman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) and Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who head the intelligence committees in their respective houses of Congress, extended similar assurances as the joint congressional investigation began in February. "This is not a who-shall-we-hang type of investigation," stated Rep. Goss. "It is [a] ‘where are the gaps in America's defense and what do we do about it' type of investigation" - a "forward-looking" inquiry intended to bring about needed reforms. But without accountability, "gaps" will handicap even the most comprehensive security system. As Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz observed, "How can we prevent future attacks if we don't understand how we missed the last one?"

Those responsible for the lethal "intelligence failure" of September 11th must be made to answer for their inaction. The congressional investigative panel has subpoena power. It should use it to summon responsible figures from the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. These officials should be subject to congressional scrutiny at least as severe as that being devoted to the actions of Enron officials - whose alleged crimes, serious as they may be, did not contribute to the death of thousands of American citizens.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA director Tenet "objected to the very word ‘failure' in connection with the intelligence gathering ahead of the devastating surprise attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," reported the New York Times. "The director said the CIA knew ‘in broad terms' last summer that terrorists might be planning major operations in the United States. But, he said, ‘we never had the texture' - meaning enough specific information - to stop what happened."

Much the same can be said of John Walker Lindh: He knew "in broad terms" that the attacks were coming, even though the specific "texture" was not explained to him. For refusing to act to prevent the massacre, Lindh has been charged with conspiracy to murder Americans. In contrast, the FBI and CIA, which had the same intelligence as Lindh, have been rewarded with generous budget increases.

Though administrators of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies would prefer to cloak the issue in self-serving euphemisms, Black Tuesday was - at best - a singular intelligence failure, for which those officials must be held responsible. And if, as one of the above-quoted former FBI counter-terrorism agents suggests, efforts to prevent that attack were compromised because of covert "agendas" in Washington, Congress must be prepared to take even more serious action.

In any case, the American public must demand that Congress ask unpleasant questions about federal foreknowledge of the 9-11 atrocity - and that the inquiry unflinchingly follow the facts wherever they lead.

wow. Aren't you generous. A year. Lincoln, after three years, had such lack of "progress" (even after Gettysburg and Vicksburg) that he almost didn't get re-elected; FDR at the end of two years didn't have a single American in uniform on the ground in France, and hadn't yet even challenged the Japanese for the Philippines. At the end of four years, General George Washington had yet to win ONE SINGLE OPEN FIELD VICTORY over the British.

Just a little perspective. You might want to take some lomotil if you are in that big a hurry.

There are many reasons by "killing bin Laden" CANNOT be top priority. Do you really want to hear them? I look at things historically.

After the crushing defeat of the Carthaginians at Zama, the Romans failed to capture Hannibal, who escaped to Egypt. If that had been their sole goal, the Roman armies would have marched all over Africa in search of one man. Instead, they claimed victory (which they indeed achieved) then quickly in a 3d war finished Carthage permanently. The Carthaginians were literally wiped from the face of the earth---but Hannibal survived in exile for a few years.

U.S. Grant never made "capturing Jeff Davis" his objective. He made the crushing of the Confederate military and civilian will to fight his goal. Jeff Davis escaped . . . for a few weeks. But the war was won.

Notice in the 1980s, Reagan did not make "killing Khaddafi" his goal. Rather, he bombed the hell out of his house, killing his relatives, destroying his military capabilities. Khadaffi, in September 2001, condemned the terror attacks. I don't care if he meant it, but obviously we got his attention!

Bin Laden may be dead now. If he is, and that comes out, the Dems will immediately claim an end to the "war on terror" and demand that we stop, even before the terror networks are crushed (and I include Arafat's boys here, too).

I agree that too many times Bush "moderates," and I think he does this for two reasons. First, he really does think that there is some good in all people, including Muslims. (As a Christian, I hate to tell all of you, but you MUST believe that anyone, including Bin Laden, can be turned around: Paul [the terrorist of his day] was). Second, I think Bush has a set of priorities in fighting the war on terror, and he does not want to get sucked into a defining confrontation with ANY state until he is ready. I think this is partly, though not entirely, what is happening with Israel/Palestine, and also Iraq.

I think this wise. We would be idiots to charge into Iraq and announce unconditional support for Israel (which deprives us of the very bases we need to attack Iraq) all at the same time. I say, pick these Arab states/governments off, one at at time.

In retrosepect, we can all agree. But at the time, the lessons were NOT that clear. Reagan did NOT depose Khaddafi, but sent a clear enough signal that Khaddafi quit. As far as we know, he has not been involved in ANY terror since the F-111 strike on his house in 1986.

Moreover, in 1992, to have deposed Saddam would have required a massive U.S. "peacekeeping" presence in Bagdhad. NO ONE was in support of that at the time, especially after the Lebanon truck-bombing. So while it is easy to say in retrospect "We should have knocked off Saddam in 1992," that was not nearly as logical a call at the time. He could have gone the way of Khaddafi.

I totally disagree. I just traveled three times by plane and I slept like a baby. I was not concerned in the least, and I could tell by the attitude of the passengers that if ANYONE made even the SLIGHTEST "funny" move, the passengers (me too, if awake!) would have been on them like white on rice.

My wife, who was afraid to fly after Sept. 11---and who was so terrified she almost wouldn't get to the airport---was greatly relieved to see that even the security measures they had in place were MUCH more efficient than what we had before. For all the flaws, it is now a much more orderly system that at least checks some things.

So, like many Americans, I think we are safer now than before in the skies.

"Just conquer them." Not possible. First, Muslim countries do not BELIEVE in "republican government," and you aren't going to just "conquer" one billion Muslims.

Second, the British and the French tried to administer these areas for the better part of a century, without success. They were a net DRAIN on the British and French empires, both in blood and treasure.

The best alternative is to develop our own oil, so the market works in spades on these people. They can sell their ONLY resource, to us, cheap, or not. We don't care.

Use some common sense. What was the first thing we DID with Cuba? Pass an amendment DEMANDING that it be made independent, NOT a U.S. territory. The same thing was planned for the Philippines, until a British fleet showed up that promised to raise the Union Jack the minute we left. So we figured, "better us than them." The Philippines were NOT going to be allowed to remain independent in 1900 by Britain or Germany, who also was in the neighborhood. The Sp-Am war had nothing to do with "Manifest Destiny," because no one, including organized labor (Gompers) or the Populists (Bryan) wanted a bunch of brown people admitted as citizens.

Dude, read some history. Did you know that Jefferson wrote about the "Empire of Liberty," that he saw enveloping MEXICO and CANADA? The Founders had NO problem with expansion, even "overseas," but merely lacked the opportunity. There was an attempt to BUY Cuba in the 1850s that failed because the South didn't want it (too many brown people there). We gave back Mexico in 1848 for the same reasons (too many Mexicans), but could have "claimed" it easily. On the other hand, the absence of "foreigners" allowed several presidents (Jackson, Van Buren, for ex) to claim our "border" extended all the way to Alaska.

I agree that Al's view is a LITTLE unreasonable, but I do think that it is possible, with enough power and the willingess to use it, to come pretty close to that vision.

For ex., in 1804 we didn't hesitate to send what fleet we had after the Barbary Pirates (after, we should note, paying them off for a few years in an attempt to be "nice"). They shut up and settled down.

Likewise, in 1986, Reagan essentially ended all terror on the part of Khaddafi by bombing his house! Will it ever be 100%? Of course not, but I do think we can---through EFFECTIVE use of military force and intelligence-gathering---command such respect that 99% of the world won't "mess with Texas."

Why would we need an extended defense if we stayed within the borders defining North America? When we took over Hawaii, we had no enemies in Asia we needed to defend ourselves against.

I am merely pointing out that this event marked the beginning of our Empire status, and for the fisrt time we became a player in the globalist game.

The reason we didn't keep Canada when we could have was because of its strong ties with Great Britain. Mexico was different. They did not have the same foundations that our own nation had, governmentally or spiritually.

As for branching out into space, there are no borders to claim out there. The Russians (who I am convinced used our technology to put Sputnik into space), got the upper hand, and we believed that it was a threat to our security. So we too branched out into space as a way to combat the supposed threat.

The Russians (who I am convinced used our technology to put Sputnik into space)

Very indirectly. Werner von Braun and company used SOME of Goddard's research (which was openly published, as much scientific and technical research is) in developing their rockets, but they did do the lion's share of taking some of Goddard's ideas and turning them into working hardware. The Russians used this German research in their own program. And Sergei Korolev was no slouch himself. And Russian technology was extremely crude. They used enough steel in their fuel tank that you could WALK on an empty one, which represents wasted weight; by comparison, an empty Atlas fuel tank will collapse under its own weight unless it's pressurized with nitrogen. That weight savings means more payload per pound of booster. The Atlas booster is still in service today (they build the upper stage fuel tanks right here in San Diego) because it's the most reliable and cost-effective way to get certain payload weights into orbit.

You are thinking small. The THREAT in 1812 was on the immediate borders; but by 1898, steam power meant that enemies could threaten U.S. coasts with impunity. The fact that none did did not mean that it was not considered and ISSUE: Britain, despite our close ties, was eyed warily, as were Japan and Germany. So Hawaii is important, if not critical.

What "differences" with Mexico? Arguably, the differences with Mexico were fewer than those between Massachusetts and Pennsylvania when they were colonies. At any rate, the constitutional system showed that anyone who wanted to become an American could do so under the territorial process.

Sorry, the Pat Buchanan view of "Fortress America" is about as discredited as anyone can make it these days.

You cannot engage in trade treaties without "political entanglements." What do you call WW I? Those were not warships being sunk. Jefferson, by the way, figured this out in his fiasco of an embargo on European goods in the early 1800s. He helped drive American farmers into bankruptcy, and left the U.S. ill-prepared to fight the war that needed to be fought. Indeed, one could say that Jefferson acted in a way we would characterize of Bill Clinton, trying to avoid conflict, while Madison followed the lead of Washington: fighting when one's interests were threatened.

I believe your WW1 reference to ships being sunk is the Lusitania, correct? If so, there is much history that you do not know.

The Lusitania's blueprints showed that if need be, it could be converted into a war ship. It was built with much more armor than a regular merchant ship or passenger ship. The presence of weapons on board was evident on how fast the ship sunk. The fact that a full Naval Escort was odered withdrawn just before entering the British water is suspect. The German's even tried warning us not to allow any American passengers on board because they said it would be destroyed. This message was sent to the editors of 50 of the nations top newspapers, yet was only run in one, and ran so that it could hardly be seen.

Wilson was our first globalist President, a precursor to both FDR and Clinton. He put in wide scale a dangerous trend that has affected us to this day. Although claiming that he wanted to keep us out of European affairs (WW1), Wilson was in fact planning on getting us involved, much the same way FDR did in WW2.

Had we not left our North American borders, there would have been no reason for any other nation to attack.

Even before the S-A War, the world recognized that we were becoming a superpower, and they were content in leaving us alone. We ascerted ourselves with the Monroe Doctrine, and when Britain wanted to place its signature on the document, we told them no. It was our doing, and we would not depend on any foreign power to help us uphold it.

It was clearly evident that the rest of the world just did not want to mess with us, until we started going beyond our borders. It used to be the only nation the Middle East nations wanted to have any trade agreements with was America, because of our strong isolationist policies. Now we are reffered to as "The Great Satan."

It would only be a matter of time before the world began retaliating. If only we had listened to the first George W.

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.