State of the Union: Why Those Terrorists Got Away

Bush skips uncomfortable details on wiretap program

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Bush defended his NSA domestic spy program, citing the failure to catch two of the 9-11 hijackers who had been placing international calls to al Qaeda leadership in the days before the attacks. But as James Ridgeway wrote in December, the problem wasn't that no U.S. intelligence agents knews of the hijackers, but rather that no one did anything with the information the U.S. had.


Wiretaps: Two Who Got Away
President Bush—unawares?—trumpets botched case
by James Ridgeway
December 19th, 2005 2:00 PM

Details

See also:
  • Mondo Washington
    State of the Union Not Looking So Stately
    Big Bush speech creates campaign atmosphere in D.C.
    by James Ridgeway

  • Verbatim: States of the Union, Revisited
    Past annual addresses of a saber-rattling president
    by Chanel Lee

  • The Bush Beat
    Fill 'Er Up With Fear
    Changing the subject, a failed oilman talks about failed oil
    by Ward Harkavy

  • State of the Union: When Bush Talks Straight
    First to Afghans, then Iraqis. Now the people of Iran?

  • State of the Union: Cindy Sheehan's Misdemeanor
    Peace mom pledged a campaign of arrestsóbut for a T-shirt?
  • Related Stories

    More About

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—When President Bush acknowledged ordering the National Security Agency to intercept domestic phone communications between terrorists here and terrorists abroad, he gave as an example the activities of two hijackers who lived in the U.S. prior to the attacks.

    "As the 9-11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the Sept. 11 attacks,’’ Bush said in his radio broadcast on Saturday. "Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdar, communicated while they were in the United States, to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here until it was too late."

    The president left out an essential part of the story. Al-Hamzi and al-Mihdar were known to the CIA, and al-Mihdar, a veteran who had fought for al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya, was living in an al Qaeda safe house in Yemen in 1999-2000. The NSA, through an intercept on this house, learned that al Qaeda would have an important secret meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, and that al-Mihdar was going to it.

    The CIA promptly put al-Mihdar under surveillance, but lost him on the way to Malaysia. There he met up with al-Hamzi. The CIA knew this meeting was important, but didn’t bug it. Agents did spot al-Hamzi and al-Mihdar and another man getting on a plane for Bangkok, but lost them.

    The two hijackers easily entered the U.S. and settled in San Diego. By this time, the CIA and NSA had gathered sufficient information on the two to connect them to the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and to Bin Laden himself, according to the Congressional Joint investigation. The Joint Inquiry Report of the Congress found there were at least three occasions when these two should have been put on the State Department’s watch list along with those for INS and Customs.

    In San Diego, the two men lived openly, obtained Social Security cards,drivers’s licenses and credit cards. They had contact with a leader of the Saudi community who would be exposed as a possible conduit for money for the hijackings. They moved into an apartment rented to them by Abdussattar Shaikh, an Indian-born Muslim and paid FBI informant charged with monitoring that city’s Saudi population. All of this either never got to the FBI or got buried in its files. (For a detailed chronology of the Shaikh matter, see Paul Thompson’s 9- 11 Timeline.

    Al-Hamzi and al-Mihdar eventually left to take up attack positions in the East.

    That saga is bad enough. But when the Congressional Joint Inquiry sought to question the FBI informant in San Diego, the Bureau refused to make him available. FBI officials would not accept a subpoena for the informant’s testimony, and they moved him to a undisclosed location. Meetings between top FBI and Justice officials with leaders of the Congressional inquiry came to naught.

    So in defending his program of wiretapping phones without a court warrant, President Bush may have unwittingly used an example that shows not the lack of American spy information—but rather illustrates the incompetence of top officials in his own administration to act on it.

     
    My Voice Nation Help
     
    Loading...