TCS Daily


Criminal Records

By Harold Hutchison - April 6, 2006 12:00 AM

In the last two weeks, over 600 documents relating to the war on terror have been released by the United States government. These documents, available at http://70.169.163.24/ (with very long download times), are notable for what they are revealing.

First, a recap of what was learned before the big document dump:

  • May, 2004: Three Fedayeen rosters are leaked to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which apparently showed that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi who attended the January 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, was a lieutenant colonel in that organization.

  • Also, Czech counter-intelligence recovered an appointment book belonging to Ahmed al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence officer who apparently met Mohammed Atta in Prague in April, 2001, which stated that he had a meeting with a "Hamburg student" (which Atta identified himself as on a Czech entry visa application). This report backs up an eyewitness account via that service of the meeting that has been hotly disputed.

This is what was known for sure. Now, for a rundown of what has now been learned.

  • Perhaps the most incriminating is a letter detailing a meeting with a Taliban consul (Document CMPC-2003-001488, possibly changed to ISGP-2003-00014127). This indicates that Saddam's regime had a relationship with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

  • Another pair of documents, CMPC-2003-001950 and CMPC-2004-001117, indicated that Saddam's regime paid off the Russian ambassador to provide intelligence data. The ambassador is suspected of having received $1.5 million worth of bribes from the Oil-for-Food program. There is no evidence that his actions were sanctioned by President Putin or the Russian government.

  • Another document, CMPC-2003-0014647, shows that Saddam Hussein ordered payments to the families of Palestinians who carried out murder-suicide bombings against Israel.

  • Document number CMPC-2004-000404 is from an Iraqi chemical platoon. This could back up the earlier leak to CNSNews.com that indicated Iraq was attempting to acquire mustard gas and anthrax.

  • Document IISP-2003-00038100 reports that Iraq was training the PLO in Iraq. It also reports that Saddam was using ambulances to deliver weapons and explosives to the Palestinians -- a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The documents released so far suggest that those who assert Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorism are wrong in making that assertion. These documents are being translated by many, and the information is slowly petering out through the Internet. The decision to topple Saddam's regime is being justified with the regime's own documents.

The author is a contributor to Strategypage.

Categories:

36 Comments

How odd.....
....that the usual defenders of Saddam are uncharacteristically silent over this TCS summary. What? No "but this is not proof!" I could almost agree, but I'd say that this tends to support the argument put forth by the Neocons and other anti-Saddamists. How about "well, why isn't Bush reporting this to the MSM?" Well, I think that he and his crew tried several years ago and now they've come to the understanding that the MSM is no friend of theirs and that the blogs and internet are far more effective at spreading the news. {Didn't NBC's Dateline just get snagged redhanded trying to incite some news w/ringers at NASCAR? and didn't McDermott just get convicted of illegal domestic electronic eavesdropping? haven't heard any of this on MSM have you?}I have heard little mention of the Saddam documents on MSM and not one mention on left-wing PBS & NPR -- which I admit, I only listen to three hours of NPR every morning and catch the Lehrer Newshour almost every night. But, okay.... maybe there's just nothing more to say about this except, keep it coming.

Where's the science?

> As we continue to plunge into the Saddam files, the
> casus belli begins to re-emerge.

The stated causus belli at the time of start belli was WMDs and support of AQ. There is no credible intelegence about WMDs, and was none at the time. The intellegence community (see a recent NYTimes editorial) does not believe there was any cooperation between Saddam and AQ. It is possible that there were flirtations but the records described in this post are considered unreliable. That's why we have intellegence analysts who are not conservative amateurs.

Saddam was a bad guy, but the US doesn't go after bad guys just because they're bad. Bush Jr. ran on the platform of not doing so ("we should not be engaged in nation building").

Responders, please do not say I support Saddam or hate America or that I want Iraq to have a civil war.

This site wants to be a science and technology blog but has degenerated into far fetched efforts to rescue the most factually challenged presidency in history from ... the facts.

Perhaps...
if you ask where is the science you should employ some of your own.

These documents show terrorist collaboration, a relationship with the Taliban and AQ, and the desire to aquire WMDs. Believe me, this article doesn't even scratch the surface of the overwhelming evidence on those three topics.

Perhaps you can tell me why all of this data should be thrown out because of a NYTs editorial. Could you state the sources within the intelligence community that were quoted in the editorial? Perhaps you can explain the wisdom of believing a newspaper, that has been found to have created stories and fudged facts before, over documents bearing the signatures of Saddam's own people?

How about....
...Richard Clarke? He made the case to the Clinton administration that AQ and Saddam were likely to collaborate on WMD terrorism. Would you consider him to be an intelligence anlayst or is he a conservative amateur? And yes, the U.S. does go after bad guys and their minions, especially when they are homicidal or genocidal maniacs -- i.e. Hitler, Castro, Noriega, Milosevic, Kaddafi, Saddam and others whom I either don't remember or never knew about. It is true that we are selective and too often, tolerate bad guys behaving monstrously. This is where GWB differs from his predecessors. He has stated that the tolerance of this behaviour is the past and the "future will be determined by free people". This principle sets him far apart from the status quo and from his own earlier statement that you remind us of. Do you think that, maybe, things changed on September 11, 2001?

Here is....
....another one, just released on 4 April.

"In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate Top Secret The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001

To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi"

See original at captainquartersblog.com





Don't keep it a secret
If these things are true, please get them on the news services. I guess that means FOX.

It's not
A secret that is. As I have told others (namely Fortunato), this information has been around a long time. This is just more proof to add to the mountains of fact that already exist.

Perhaps, instead, you should consider the reasons your favorite news outlet refuses to present this information as well as not reporting that much of this information existed during the Clinton era.

Never Mind the Science, Where's the Politics?
OK, I won't say you "support Saddam or hate America or that (you) want Iraq to have a civil war". I'll just say you are a ring-tailed idiot, and let it go at that.

In 1998, Bush was Governor of Texas. Clinton was President and, as I recall, he was a Democrat. The Congress in that year passed a law called the Iraq Liberation Act 1998. The Senate voted 100% (by acclamation) for that law, and the vote in the House was 360-38 in favor. President Clinton signed the Act into law. Regime change in Iraq was a matter of law from that point onward, but the 1998 law did not authorize military force; military force was authorized by the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, and was voted for by a substantial number of Democrats.

These quotes are from the 1998 Act, and I presume that all the Democratic Senators, and the vast majority of Democratic House Members that voted for the Act, believed these statements to be true:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Additionally, President Clinton ordered the attack on the al-Shifa chemical factory in Sudan because Iraq and Osama bin Laden were cooperating in building chemical weapons material. Other contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’eda were well documented at that time:

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

Of all the Democrats that said that Iraq had chemical weapons in 1998, only one changed his story before March 2003. Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Daschle, Levin, Kennedy, and the jerk from Delaware, I never can remember his name, all said, and continued to say, that Saddam had WMD up until hostilities began in March 2003. I have researched this extensively, as has Kevin Drum and others, and whether or not the Democrats voted for the War, they continued to assure us that Saddam had WMD. If you can find any national politician besides Dennis Kucinich that changed his story between 1998 and 2003, I would love to hear it, but I don't think it happened.

Democrats realized that their long-term "soft on defense" position left them vulnerable to criticism after 09/11, and sought to attack President Bush. The best way to do that was the missing WMD. Forget that the WMD was not only well-documented (by Democrats), but also a matter of United States law (by Democrats), all before Bush was ever in the White House. To avoid being considered as a one-trick pony, the Democratic Party added the charge that there was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden (Bush never claimed there was), quite in opposition to well documented connections and the actions by President Clinton. The Democrats continued lying about Saddam, bin Laden, and 09/11 is reminiscent of a different false propaganda effort by Goebbels and the *****.

AQ and WMDs,
There is and has always been substantial evidence of both WMDs and WMD programs in Iraq. The Iraq survey group after the war reported proof that Saddam was ready to restart all of his programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Regarding the NYT editorial. Rephrase that to say that those members of the intelligence community willing to illegally talk to the NYT (and whom the NYT was willing to listen) say that there was no evidence. Except to a liberal, that's not the same as saying nobody believed there was any evidence.

Another question, why, when the subject is terrorism, do liberals try to change the subject to AQ?

Why should this evidence be thrown out?
Because to a liberal, only evidence that coincides with their prejudices counts as authentic.

It's futile
It's futile at this point to continue to argue over the WMD/no WMD issue. I personally could care less that we have yet to find whatever proof it is that those who demand proof are looking for. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do for a host of reasons that have been cited ad nauseum. But I will reiterate two points that should be beyond debate by this time.
1) Saddam financially supported the families of Palestianian suicide bombers
2) Salman Pak was a terrorist training camp http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/03/mil-050330-mnfi-mnci05.htm
Then there's the issue of Abu Nidal, but I said I'd only reiterate two points...

Thank you.
Amen!

Not much news here
Just rehashing the stuff that has already been reported. It is not surprising the Liberals here have never heard this stuff, or deny it is proof of anything; after all it wasn't on Moveon.org so it can't be true.

Thousands of ready syringes of antropine were discovered druing the invasion. But that proves nothing.

Chemicals were found. That proves nothing.

Chemical shells were found - Meaningless.

A large amount of usually reliable intelligence on Saddams connection with Al Queda, with terror, with WMDs. - Bush lied.

A lot of documents were discovered talking about Saddam's desire to reconstitute his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted. - Should have let the inspections continue.

Food for oil scandle - U.N. sanctions were working, we had him boxed in.

A few weeks to complete the invasion, minimal loss of life, new schools, work on reconstruction, three elections, Iraqi forces being trained. - WE have to get out now we are losing!

Who lied? who is lying? what is the agenda?

You tell me.

More braying
There was no state intelligence agency that doubted that Saddam had WMD nor is there any evidence that Saddam destroyed them. Strange how we get the same old commissrs who can believe Saddam and his ilk while doubting the intelligence services of the free world.


One wonders what evidence you have to support your contention Saddam had no weapons? We'd all love to see it.

Sad to see what these trolls are willing to say and believe.

Impressive
Crotalus:
Very nice rebuttal. Howver when the Left has a choice between fantasy and facts they'll always opt for the fantasy that supports their thesis rather than the facts that disprove it.

Simple realy
Why is it being leaked rather then put in the public domain?
If it is such hot stuff then why isn't it out there?
What do the experts actually think of the material?


I see Libby spilt his guts I wonder if there is going to be a TCS piece on that?

spot check
I don't have time to explore all of these, so I chose just one, which is:

> Also, Czech counter-intelligence recovered an
> appointment book belonging to Ahmed al-Ani, the Iraqi
> intelligence officer who apparently met Mohammed Atta
> in Prague in April, 2001, which stated that he had a
> meeting with a "Hamburg student" (which Atta identified
> himself as on a Czech entry visa application). This
> report backs up an eyewitness account via that service
> of the meeting that has been hotly disputed.

The White House used to use this one, and by now it has been thoroughly debunked. Even the White House doesn't use it any more.

Astoundingly simple....
Are you truly that dopey? This information is not being leaked, it is being handed out to anyone who wants it. Heck, there is even a website for this distribution. It's just that the MSM is not reporting on it. Let's see if you can understand this -- the internet is the most accessible public domain on planet earth. And your statement on Libby is exceptional in its stupidity. Hello in there -- the president has complete authority to declassify and leak information.

Not so...
The Czechs have still stood by the story and the claim:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007584

More braying by LeftyGoodietwoshoes
Debunked by whom? No one has backed down and the evidence is supported by verified sources.

News from the fever swamps
Guess you were hiding behind the door again. The data is open and was declassified. Shouldn't you be over at the Kos kiddies with your mentor the much abused Kos?

I believe...
LG's source is Fortunato. Not a wise choice for factual information.

This site
Since I've been coming here, this site has always talked about politics. I think the site is doing precisely what it wants!

Does the National Intelligence Estimate not constitute evidence? Why not hold the CIA accountable as well as the president? I'm sure for their mistakes they'll be punished with . . . more funding. These same intelligence "experts" thought there were WMDs in Iraq! Don't believe the backpedaling . . .

Defensive bureauacracy
LiberalGoodman gives the CIA bureauacracy too much credit. The CIA is protecting itself, and he's falling for it!

WMD issues
I'd worry about the issue, because if he had them, and we lost them because we were to busy making UN presentations, then there's a big problem there.

That being said, that's not the reason the left is harping.

debunking
This thorough debunking exists only in your own mind.

another reason to worry
If he had them, and now doesn't, where are they.

It isn't being leaked
The originals of these documents were placed in the public domain.

here's a link
Here's an example of what the intelligence community is trying to backpedal from.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html

Humbug is always 100% right
So you believe that any organization bats 100%?

Since you're so perfect just for arguments sake, why not tell us the exact results of gains and losses for the GOP and Democrats in the 2008 elections.



Case closed.

Heh!
Not even 1000- but why so protective of the CIA? I don't really blame them for getting it wrong. Saddam was obviously a nut who wasn't a rational actor. I just don't like backpedaling. Why are you defending backpedaling?

Don't know.
No idea. I wish we could have gotten them . . .

Ignorance, gross ignorance and plain arrogance
I don't defend back pedalling I attack those who believe they're information is somehow superior than the best the nation has available at a given moment. If our leadership uses such information that's one thing. If it ignores it as the Clintionistas did, then they have to answer for it.

Now if you have better information sources I'd sure like to know about them or are you hearing the voices of Matta Hari at night?

absurd
The US claimed Saddam had WMD, not that he was trying to obtain them. The US (Cheney?) claimed Saddam supported 9/11. If the claim was that Saddam was supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers the US should also have attacked Syria, Saudi Arabia and plenty of Gulf monarchies... The truth is Saddam had WMD in the late 80´s and early 90´s. The UN inspectors after the I Gulf War did a good job in destroying them and their development programmes. Saddam was considered an atheist and an infidel by Al Qaeda. There never was any link.

The documents shared prove nothing that was not known and do nothing to support the greatest estrategic mistake of the US in the last 50 years...

No Subject
I just know what the CIA was saying before the war and what they were saying after. Look in the mirror before accusing people of arrogance. And read the comment from LiberalGoodman I was responding to. If this is what you're getting worked up about that's pathetic. Good day.

Amazing!
It just NEVER ceases to amaze me that the MSM ignores EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that supports the Bush position - regardless of the security ramifications. The MSM has no interest in the well-being of this nation. The MSM, in fact, supports the Globalization effort and disregards any evidence that supports ANY issue with which they do not agree!
There should be some accounting - some way for the press to be made to print the truth...perhaps we can have one Truth Day per week on which they would be forced to print the truth. It is my belief that "Freedom of the Press" has been so abused, so bastardized that anyone can say or print anything, even that which may be detrimental to the well-being of this nation. They have printed stories in favor of overthrow of the government. They have given our enemies more than enough ammunition against us. They are constantly barraging the American public with untruths and half-truths, most of which the average American cannot discern! If one does not MAKE the time or TAKE the time to research and read further into issues, then one cannot help but believe the untruths that are printed.
There has to be some way to wake up America to the truth of what is occurring here. The Left has been working toward diminishing our sovereign nation status for decades. If Americans do not wake up and "smell the gas" we are going to find ourselves in a far different environment in the not-too-distant future!

see www.stoptheaclu.org

TCS Daily Archives