9/11

9/11, al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Gitmo, Guantanamo, jihadist propaganda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, September 11, terrorists, World Trade Center

9/11 family member comes face to face with evil: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

by  • 

Lorraine Arias-Beliveau’s youngest brother Adam Arias was killed in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In yesterday’s New York Daily News, she described her close encounter with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and her reaction the next day, while still on Guantanamo Naval Base, when President Barack Obama announced Gitmo would close:

I could hardly believe my eyes when he came into focus: Khalid Shaik Mohammed, the man who boasted of having masterminded the attacks. He sat there in front of us, preening his beard. Did he seem humbled or chastened? Hardly. He looked like, deep inside, he was laughing in our faces.

What we then saw unfold was less of a trial than a farce. Mohammed dismissed his council — only to call them back. He sat there at the table, in front of his personal computer, complaining about something he had read in The Wall Street Journal — holding up the newspaper for the rest of us to see.

Before long, the scene was overwhelmed by a steady stream of what sounded to me like legal minutiae and trivialities. It was sickening. It was surreal.

I will never forget what interrupted that: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s defense declaring to the court that their client was requesting a cushion because his seat in the van had been too hard. A debate unfolded: the prosecution claimed the cushion had already been provided; the defense insisted he had not received one.

Was this really happening? I went outside for air. My on-base escort followed and asked me what was wrong. “Three thousand people are dead and they are arguing over a cushion,” I answered.

Then came a two hour break — one for lunch, the second for the defendants’ specially protected hour of prayer.

It wasn’t long before the circus resumed. Back at trial, Mohammed burst out with this (according to my notes): “I did it I said I did it! I am proud I did it for jihad!! We say we are guilty just sentence me!”

The words were chilling but something cut even deeper to my core: his gaze. Mohammed turned to make eye contact with us. We stared back.

Before long, court was dismissed, and we were informed that, due to the inauguration of the new President, there would be no hearings the following day.

The following morning we heard the news over CNN: by order of the President, all the proceedings were now on hold… READ THE REST.

That courtroom discussion about a cushion for a self-confessed mass-murderer’s derrière was no joke. It is but one product of a so far successful campaign conducted on behalf of Islamic terrorists by their profiteering lawyers. Their tales of torture, abuse, starvation, and deprivation has been knowingly furthered by human rights organizations, newspapers, and media outlets.

No pun intended, the end result of their propaganda may well be terrorists moved to America’s prisons in or near civilian populaces, attacks conducted to free them, al Qaeda trained jihadists released on bail onto America’s streets pending trial, the granting to some among them permanent resident status, and the public disclosure of America’s secrets during their trials in our federal courts.

Was it really a propaganda campaign? Yes.

9/11, 9/11 Commission, al Qaeda, Eric Holder, Jamie Gorelick, the Wall

DAG Eric Holder was repeatedly told the ‘Wall’ was blocking intelligence sharing

by  • 

Three times during his tenure as Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder was made fully aware that intelligence sharing with the Criminal Division was not taking place. As the officer in charge of day-to-day operations at the Department of Justice, his lack of due diligence ensured that the ‘Wall’ between the intelligence and criminal divisions of the FBI that Jamie Gorelick had built would remain in place for the foreseeable future. The ‘Wall’ stood as the Clinton administration and intelligence community saw the rising threat of al Qaeda, Ramzi Yousef prosecuted for making the bomb used in the 1993 attack upon the World Trade Center and “Bojinka” plot to bomb American jetliners, and our embassies in Africa attacked in 1998.

Despite being well informed in 1997 of the problem, Mr. Holder allowed the very working group he had formulated to not make a single serious recommendation; then he disbanded the group without action:

In June 1996, a memorandum was drafted for the Attorney General to issue emphasizing that contacts between intelligence and criminal agents were not prohibited. (Appendix D, Tab 28) This draft memorandum (961) was never issued, however. (McAdams 7/16/99) By September 1997, according to Daniel S. Seikaly, Director of the Executive Office for National Security (“EONS”), the Director of the FBI had complained to the Attorney General that, despite the July 1995 memorandum, OIPR was preventing the FBI from contacting the Criminal Division. (962) (Seikaly 4/4/00) According to a memorandum Seikaly wrote at the time, the Attorney General was “anxious” to see the problem resolved. (Appendix D, Tab 37) Deputy Attorney General Holder instructed Seikaly to convene a working group consisting of representatives from OIPR, the FBI, and the Criminal Division to address the issue. (Appendix D, Tab 37; Seikaly 4/4/00)) Seikaly concluded that the Attorney General’s memorandum was not being followed, indeed that both OIPR and the FBI “were ignoring the procedures out of an abundance of caution.” (Appendix D, Tab 45) One suggestion was “simply to ask the Attorney General to … reassert the validity of the Procedures,” (id) but there was some sentiment that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General to issue a memorandum that essentially said “And we really mean it this time.” (Seikaly 4/4/00) In the end, the working group was disbanded without recommendation and no significant action was taken. [emphasis added mine] — Bellows Report, page 722, (pdf reader required)

As stated in Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Report, in both 1999 and 2000, “[S]eparate reviews concluded independently that information sharing was not occurring, and that the intent of the 1995 procedures was ignored routinely,” yet again, Holder took no action.