False Witness: Director Of National Intelligence Lies To Senate Committee

In his testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of February 5th, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell [photo] told some very interesting lies. Four of them, all in the same short passage, grabbed me especially hard -- by the throat.

Two of those lies are easy to spot, for anyone with a reasonable understanding of contemporary world history. But spotting the others might require the eye of a specialist. Fortunately, such a specialist is available.

The lies from McConnell on which I want to focus in this post all came in the short section of his testimony called "THE “HOMEGROWN” THREAT". Here's the text of that section:

Over the next year, attacks by "homegrown" extremists inspired by militant Islamic ideology but without operational direction from al-Qa'ida will remain a threat to the United States or against US interests overseas. The spread of radical Salafi Internet sites that provide religious justification for attacks, increasingly aggressive and violent anti-Western rhetoric and actions by local groups, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries that identify with violent Salafi objectives, all suggest growth of a radical and violent segment among the West's Muslim populations. Our European allies regularly tell us that they are uncovering new extremist networks in their countries.

While the threat from such homegrown extremists is greater in Europe, the US is not immune. The threat here is likely to be fueled in part by propaganda and mischaracterizations of US foreign policy as harmful to Muslims, rather than by any formal assistance from al-Qa'ida or other recognized groups. The al-Qa'ida-propagated narrative of an "us versus them" struggle serves both as a platform and a potential catalyst for radicalization of Muslims alienated from the mainstream US population.

A small, but growing portion of al-Qa'ida propaganda, is in English and is distributed to an American audience—either in translated form or directly by English-speaking al-Qa'ida members like Adam Gadahn, the American member of al-Qa'ida who, in early-January, publicly urged Muslims to use violence to protest the President's Middle East trip. Bin Ladin's September 2007 "message to the American people" and Zawahiri's May 2007 interview include specific US cultural and historical references almost certainly meant to strike a chord with disaffected US listeners.

Disrupted plotting over the past 14 months in New Jersey and Illinois highlights the diverse threat posed by Homeland based radical Muslims inspired by extremist ideology. A group of European and Arab Muslim immigrants arrested last May for planning to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey, used a group member's familiarity with the US Army base to determine their target. In Illinois, the FBI arrested US Muslim convert Derrick Shareef in December 2006 as he attempted to obtain weapons for a self-planned, self-executed terrorist attack against a shopping mall in Rockford.

To date, cells detected in the United States have lacked the level of sophistication, experience, and access to resources of terrorist cells overseas. Their efforts, when disrupted, largely have been in the nascent phase, and authorities often were able to take advantage of poor operational tradecraft. However, the growing use of the internet to identify and connect with networks throughout the world offers opportunities to build relationships and gain expertise that previously were available only in overseas training camps. It is likely that such independent groups will use information on destructive tactics available on the Internet to boost their own capabilities.

Some of the above might possibly be true. But certainly not all of it. I've added a bit of emphasis to highlight the parts that grabbed me.

First of all, McConnell's phrase, "mischaracterizations of US foreign policy as harmful to Muslims", is worthy of a nomination, if not immediate enshrinement, in the Bullshit Hall of Fame.

How many Muslims have we killed in Iraq? How many Muslims have we killed in Afghanistan? How many Muslims have we made homeless, and stateless, throughout the Middle East, since the fall of 2001? How many innocent Muslims have been wrongly incarcerated -- and in some cases tortured -- by Americans in the past seven years? How many Muslim countries are we currently attacking (either openly or clandestinely or by proxy) or threatening (ditto)?

The answers: at least a million, tens of thousands, many millions, tens of thousands, and at least five.

Is this good for Muslims? In what way is this good for Muslims?

As you may have noticed, McConnell takes Bush's famous ultimatum "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" and renders it completely backwards, as a narrative propagated by al Qaeda, and a potential catalyst for radicalization of Muslims.

He must do this reality reversal, of course, otherwise Bush would be shown as guilty of providing a potential catalyst for the violent radicalization of Muslims, and others.

But those are the easy lies to spot.

More difficult to debunk, for most observers, would be McConnell's reference to the video of Osama bin Laden released in September of 2007. Whether we find Osama's videos too scary or too boring, very few of us ever sit down and watch. And that's too bad, because we miss out on important insights, such as the undeniable fact that the video to which McConnell refers contains three and a half minutes of live video and nearly twenty minutes of a still photograph with a voice-over. Scary stuff! The world's most frightening terrorists -- against whom we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to defend ourselves -- can't make a video in which their fearless leader speaks for a full 20 minutes? We should all be quaking in our boots -- especially Mike McConnell, the treasonous liar who has helped put us on such a slippery slope.

And worst of all, from McConnell's point of view: all mentions of current events in this video occur when ... are you ahead of me here? ... all mentions of current events occur during the "still-photo with voice-over" sections. What an astonishing coincidence!!

Imagine Osama bin Laden being able to speak for minutes at a time without moving his lips, without turning a page of his notes, without twitching a finger or an eyebrow! What an amazing terrorist mastermind!!

Much more difficult to spot, but even more damning -- if possible -- is this complex and patently false assertion from McConnell:

In Illinois, the FBI arrested US Muslim convert Derrick Shareef in December 2006 as he attempted to obtain weapons for a self-planned, self-executed terrorist attack.

Regular visitors to this page have been reading about Derrick Shareef since the day his arrest was announced. At the risk of trying their patience, let's recap:

Derrick Shareef [sketch] was arrested in a parking lot in Rockford Illinois, after trading a pair of used stereo speakers for a box containing four hand grenades, a handgun and some ammunition. According to federal prosecutors (from Chicago, including Patrick Fitzgerald), Shareef was planning to detonate the grenades in garbage cans in Rockford's CherryVale Mall in just a few more weeks -- on the Friday before Christmas.

Fitzgerald and the others hastened to assure the public that we were never in any danger. But they didn't elaborate, other than to say the suspect had been under surveillance for some time.

Other reports made it abundantly clear that there was never any danger at all. The grenades and the ammunition were non-functional, but Shareef didn't know that. The "arms dealer" with whom he made the trade was an FBI agent, but Shareef didn't know that either. Other FBI agents, waiting at the scene, arrested Shareef right after he placed the box of fake weapons into the trunk of a car. The car belonged to an FBI informant, which the affidavit filed against Shareef called a Confidential Source (CS).

The affidavit, written by FBI agent Jared Ruddy, constitutes the only public evidence ever presented against Derrick Shareef, who waived his bail hearing, waived his evidentiary hearing, then pleaded not guilty and sat in prison for almost a year ... and then -- suddenly -- he changed his plea to guilty, just a few days before his trial was scheduled to begin.

Shareef pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to obtain and/or use a weapon of mass destruction. The weapon of mass destruction in question was a hand grenade. (Yes! According to the Federal law invoked in this case, grenades are explicitly classified as "weapons of mass destruction".) Shareef remains in prison pending sentencing, and may face as much as 30 years behind bars.

Later that day -- the very same day on which Shareef changed his plea -- William "Jameel" Chrisman [photo] testified in New Haven, Connecticut, in a hearing pertaining to another case. In his testimony, which continued through the following day, Chrisman stated that he had moved from Buffalo, NY, to Rockford IL, at the behest of the FBI, who had "tasked" him to meet Derrick Shareef.

The task proved surprisingly easy for Chrisman, who simply walked into the video store where Shareef was working and struck up a conversation with his target. The timing of the meeting was indeed very fortunate for Chrisman, since Shareef had no place to live at the time and was about to move in with the manager of the store. But Chrisman gave him another option.

Within eight hours Shareef was moving in with Chrisman, his three wives and their nine children. It's a bizarre family arrangement, to be sure, but it's one of the least bizarre details of this story.

William Chrisman's testimony filled in some of the missing pieces from Jared Ruddy's affidavit. The affidavit was based on conversations Chrisman recorded while he was with Shareef but -- for obvious reasons -- didn't mention how or why Chrisman and Shareef were together.

On the other hand, the affidavit did include enough information to show unequivocally that Shareef had been entrapped by a very slick operator. And by combining the details included in the affidavit with those revealed when Chrisman testified in New Haven, we can see quite clearly that:

Chrisman was the one who suggested bombing CherryVale Mall. Chrisman was the one who suggested using grenades for the attack on the mall. Chrisman was the one who suggested the timing of the attack -- and gave the reason: to disrupt the height of the Christmas shopping season. Chrisman urged Shareef to join him in making martyrdom videos; in his testimony, Chrisman boasted that he had talked Shareef into making the video just six weeks after Shareef had moved in with him.

Chrisman and Shareef cased the CherryVale Mall twice, using Chrisman's car to get there. They had to use Chrisman's car because Shareef didn't have one. Shareef didn't have any weapons, he didn't know anybody who could help him get weapons, and he didn't seem to know anything about weapons either. Chrisman set up the "deal" with the bogus "arms dealer". And Chrisman also arranged the "trade" (four grenades for a pair of speakers), after the "purchase" which Chrisman originally tried to set up (two grenades for $100) had proved unworkable. The sale was unworkable because Shareef couldn't get his hands on any cash, and the affidavit hints that he might even have stolen the speakers.

And finally, after setting all this up, Chrisman himself drove Shareef to parking lot in which "the arms deal" was to take place, and in which Shareef was arrested.

All these details are in the public record. Anyone can read the affidavit filed against Shareef and the news articles about Chrisman's testimony in New Haven in November. Not long ago, your cold correspondent compiled and published all the pertinent details in a single post. Just last week, Rolling Stone published an article called "The Fear Factory", which also spotlights this case -- a bit dimly, perhaps, but nonetheless...

It may be argued that Derrick Shareef should have had enough good sense to say "No" to Jameel Chrisman and his crazy schemes. I agree entirely, although I must point out that it would have been extremely difficult for him to do this, even if he had enough sense to suspect that he was being set up. Shareef might only have been trash-talking, but Chrisman was certainly pushing him, testing his manhood, and his faith -- and all the while, the only reason why Derrick Shareef had a place to live was because of the "generosity" of Jameel Chrisman and the FBI sponsors behind him. Should Shareef have been more circumspect? Surely. Could he have been less careful? Hardly. Is his trash talk worthy of decades behind bars? Maybe not. Is this the main issue here? No. Not at all.

It may be argued that behind all the trash-talk, Derrick Shareef was actually a mean dude in a foul mood who would have done America grievous harm if he ever figured out how to do it. But there's no way short of abject reality-denial that one can argue, like the folks at STRATFOR argued last week, that Derrick Shareef was a "lone wolf". And similarly, there's no way short of absolute reality-reversal that one can say, like Michael McConnell told the Senate Select Committee, that Derrick Shareef was attempting "to obtain weapons for a self-planned, self-executed terrorist attack".

Was the "CherryVale Mall attack" really "self-planned"? Hardly! The only aspect of the plan which can be fairly attributed to Shareef was the bit about how the grenades would be detonated in garbage cans, so that shoppers would be shocked and awed by all the flying garbage.

And was it "self-executed"? Not a bit! It was never executed at all. And a close reading of the affidavit shows that Derrick Shareef was no suicide bomber. He was mostly worried about how he was going to get away.

But even if McConnell had said "self-to-be-executed", or otherwise suggested that Shareef was doing all his maneuvering in secret, without any accomplices, he would still have had no support in the available evidence. Shareef wouldn't have been maneuvering at all without Chrisman and his car.

Michael McConnell must know better. Or if not, then he should! If I know better, why should he know less? He's the Director of National Intelligence, for crying out loud, and I'm a citizen journalist. Mike McConnell can read my email if he wants to, so why should I know more than he does about anything?

Will McConnell's lies remain unchallenged? Or will the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ask me to testify as well? I'm sure we all know the answer to that one.

Aside from the question of whether Derrick Shareef got decent legal representation, aside from the obvious impropriety of fomenting bogus terror plots which can then be foiled for political publicity purposes, aside from a Director of National Intelligence categorically lying about something so easily documented, what does it matter?

Does it matter, in the long run, whether Derrick Shareef spends the rest of his life in prison? Not especially.

What matters is the damage that's about to be done to our future, by our own government, using a false pretext which the government itself has set up, and in which Michael McConnell's lies play a big part.

Congress is about to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which will establish a raft of new powers for the federal government to use in a "search" for the "roots" of "violent radicalization" in "homegrown terrorists".

It will enable national data-mining on an unimagined scale. It will strip privacy rights wherever they interfere with the search for the elusive answer ... which is not very elusive at all, but quite obvious, really.

We already know what leads these "homegrown terrorists" down the path of "violent radicalization": agents-provocateur working for the FBI and/or local law enforcement (like the NYPD).

So why do they need to study it?

Might there be some other reason for studying the "Islamic propaganda" which "mischaracterizes American foreign policy as harmful to Muslims"?

Might there be a plan in the works under which honest patriotic Americans will find it dangerous to point out the many ways in which American foreign policy is extremely harmful to Muslims, since to do so might cause one to be accused of supporting or enabling or providing the ideological background for the next generation of terrorists?

The potential ramifications are mind-boggling. And none of them are good for you!

Musharraf Postpones Election, Calls In Scotland Yard

Pakistan has requested a team of British investigators to look into the death of former Prime Minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who died in Rawalpindi last Thursday after what looked to be a coordinated shooting and bombing attack.

The request for foreign assistance is timely; the Pakistani government has changed the official story of Bhutto's slaying for the third time in less than a week.

As Julian Borger and Mark Tran report for The Guardian with no trace of visible irony:

"We would like to know what were the reasons that led to the martyrdom of Benazir Bhutto. I would also like to look into it," Musharraf said in a televised address.

Sure, you would, Pervez! Especially because you and the deceased were such bitter political enemies!

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has agreed to send a team from Scotland Yard to assist the Pakistanis.

The great thing about getting the UK to "cooperate" with the "investigation" is that top British officials already know who did it! Thus:

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said a team from Scotland Yard is due to leave Britain this week.

"As the terrible events of last week show only too clearly, Pakistan faces a very serious threat from extremism," Miliband said.

"The UK is already closely engaged with the government of Pakistan on counter-terrorism cooperation. The prime minister and President Musharraf have agreed to further deepen this aspect of our relationship, and officials will travel to Pakistan to take this forward."

They're just going to take their anti-terror relationship forward a little bit!

It's perfect!!

And it fits in well with the official Pakistani stance on the matter, as articulated Wednesday evening by the President:

In his first major speech since the Bhutto killing, Musharraf appealed for reconciliation.

"The nation has experienced a great tragedy. Benazir Bhutto has died in the hands of terrorists. I pray to God almighty to put the eternal soul of Benazir at peace," he said.

The British investigators will serve as international window-dressing, since the Pakistanis will be running the show, as Carlotta Gall and Graham Bowley report for the New York Times:

Scotland Yard said in a statement that a small team of officers from its counter terrorism command would travel to Pakistan, but that the Pakistan authorities would lead the investigation.

Therefore is seems quite safe to predict that the British investigators will not become intimately familiar with the clues provided here:

The reason why Musharraf's government wants the shooting of Bhutto story to just go away.

The Pakistani police seem to have the gun used to kill Bhutto now in their custody.

(The day of the shooting and bomb blast I saw a hand gun on top of a piece of fabric that had been found at the scene of the crime. This black 9mm hand gun was on top of a piece of cloth near the side of the street in the blast area. I have tried to relocate that photo that was captioned - "After the shooting and blast a few hand guns were located in the crime/blast area." I have been unable to find that same photo again, it may have been taken down.)

Now it appears the black 9mm I saw in the photo, the gun seen in the videos, and the gun in the custody of the police are all the same 9mm black handgun.

The police handgun found at the crime scene ... has been identified as a 9mm - Steyr M9 ..

Now guess who uses the Steyr M 9X19mm handgun exclusively - the Pakistani army - special forces division.

That may be the reason why Musharraf just wants the whole incident of Bhutto's assassination to just disappear and go away. Because the gun used was issued to a member of the Generalissimo's military.

Nah, nah, nah! It was the extremists!!

~~~

In related news, the Parliamentary election originally scheduled for January 8 will now be held on February 18, against the stated wishes of the PPP -- Ms. Bhutto's party -- and one remaining major opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif. Government officials say a delay is inevitable given the damage caused to election offices and materials during rioting that broke out after Ms. Bhutto was killed. Opposition leaders have not decided how to respond to the postponement, but they say they want to establish a "united" front.

We'll see about that.

Pakistan: Dangerous And Violent Nonsense In Wake Of Bhutto Assassination

The dangerous nonsense coming out of Pakistan has reached seemingly impossible new levels of absurdity in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Rawalpindi on Thursday.

[Seemingly impossible? Maybe. But the bar has been raised yet again, and this piece has been updated (twice) with even more absurdity than the absurd original.]

The government's story of how she died changed twice in the first 36 hours after her death, and now they don't want to talk about it anymore. Their story of who did it has only changed once, and that's all they want to talk about.

In short, Bhutto's party -- the Pakistan People's Party -- blames the government, and the government blames the terrorists. Which terrorists? Who cares! But if they could be connected to al Qaeda, so much the better...

... unless they also happened to be connected to the ISI, and therefore to Musharraf, and therefore (willingly and wittingly, or otherwise) to the Bush Administration.

We'll have more on these connections -- tenuous though they may be -- below. More on the future of the PPP below as well.

The government's shifting tales of the details of the former Prime Minister's death haven't helped quell the inevitable conspiracy theories; on the contrary, they tend to implicate the government in the murder -- or at least in the coverup.

Not incidentally, three days of violent protests have left at least 40 people dead, and tens of millions of dollars of damage to thousands of buildings and other facilities, including elections offices where voters lists have been "reduced to ashes".

AFP reports:

The interior ministry insists she had no gunshot or shrapnel wounds ...

"This is ridiculous, dangerous nonsense because it is a cover-up of what actually happened," Bhutto's spokeswoman Sherry Rehman, who was involved in washing her body for burial, retorted....

"There was a bullet wound I saw that went in from the back of her head and came out the other side," Rehman told AFP.

In any case it is clear that certain factions within the government are playing fast and loose with reality.

According to Javed Iqbal Cheema, spokesman for the Interior Ministry,

“It is not important now how she died because the fact is that we have lost her and the important thing is that who killed her and how can we catch them.”

The Bangkok Post had a slightly different quote, yet quite the same sentiment:

"It is immaterial how she died," he told journalists. "What is more important is, who are the people who killed her? I think we have to uncover those people."

Saeed Shah details the ever-changing story that has now been declared immaterial in Toronto's Globe and Mail:

Babar Awan, a senior People's Party official. He said he saw her body after the attack and there were at least two bullet wounds, one in the neck and one on the top of the head.

"It was a targeted, planned killing," he said. "The firing was from more than one side."

But

Instead of pronouncing her assassinated, the latest official account gives her a much more prosaic end. Cynics suggested it was an attempt to rein in the legend that has already sprung up of Ms. Bhutto as a martyr for democracy. Others say it's an effort to blunt criticism she wasn't adequately protected.

This is the second time the story has been changed.

Just 24 hours earlier, the government had been putting forward a different account that also contradicted the People's Party version of events. It had said Ms. Bhutto was not killed by gunfire, but by flying shrapnel from the blast.

And that story didn't agree with what the eyewitnesses saw, either.

Nearly all eyewitnesses and accounts by people travelling in her vehicle agree she was first shot and had slumped back into the jeep when the blast occurred.

Amateur video released yesterday shows a gunman firing at least three shots at Ms. Bhutto followed by a huge blast, but the government says the gunman missed.

The doctors at the hospital told journalists and People's Party leaders that she had died as a result of a bullet wound to the neck. Some of the doctors apparently later changed their stories.

So the question remains: How can you catch the people who did it if you don't care to find out what they did? It's a very strange way to solve a crime, so to speak. Some people will probably say it's a good way to keep a crime unsolved.

And it's not the only sign of a coverup:

Ms. Bhutto was sent to her grave yesterday without autopsy. Her body was flown immediately from the hospital, in a sealed coffin, to the burial. So the truth of government assertion that she died in an extraordinary accident will probably never be known.

Mohammadmian Soomro, the caretaker prime minister of Pakistan, told the cabinet that Ms. Bhutto's husband, Asif Zardari, had insisted on no autopsy.

But in a case of this nature, an autopsy is mandatory under the criminal law of Pakistan, according to leading lawyer Athar Minallah - and it is the state's responsibility.

"It is absurd, because without autopsy it is not possible to investigate," he said.

Firefighters also cleaned the scene of the attack in Rawalpindi with high-pressure hoses within an hour, washing evidence away.

Meanwhile the government has released a transcript of what it claims is a conversation between Baitullah Mehsud and an unidentified tribal leader, which is says proves that Baitullah Mehsud was behind the assassination.

"We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al-Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination," said Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.

Mr. Mehsud is a tribal chief in the Waziristan region, on the border with Afghanistan, and the leader of Pakistan's homegrown version of the Taliban. He is said to be close to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who is an ally of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

According to a transcript released of a conversation between Mr. Mehsud and an unidentified religious cleric, the tribal chief conveyed his congratulations for the attack.

"It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her," Mr. Mehsud said, according to the transcript, on being told by the cleric that three of his men were behind the assassination.

The article reprints the transcript. The empahsis is mine:

The following is a transcript released by the Pakistani government yesterday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is referred to as Emir Sahib, and another man identified as a Maulvi Sahib, or Mr. Cleric. The government alleges the intercepted conversation proves al-Qaeda was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:

Maulvi Sahib: Peace be on you.
Mehsud: Peace be on you, too.
...
Maulvi Sahib: They were our men there.
Mehsud: Who were they?
Maulvi Sahib : There were Saeed, the second was Badarwala Bilal and Ikramullah was also there.
Mehsud: The three did it?
Maulvi Sahib: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.
Mehsud: Then congratulations to you again.
...
Mehsud: It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her.
Maulvi Sahib: Praise be to God. I will give you more details when I come.
Mehsud: I will wait for you. Congratulations once again.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations to you as well.
...
Mehsud: Peace be on you.
Maulvi: Same to you.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this transcript is legitimate, the flow of the conversation seems to show Maulvi Sahib telling Baitullah Mehsud who executed the attack.

Does this show that Baitullah Mehsud was behind it? One might think that if Baitullah Mehsud were responsible for the assassination, he would be the one giving the details.

And one might think the shooter shown in the photo would at least have a beard! But this is Pakistani politics after all, where nothing makes any sense at face value.

Even the alleged connection between Baitullah Mehsud and al Qaeda is in dispute.

And there's been more nonsense elsewhere, including this bit in the US, courtesy of TIME magazine:

An FBI and Department of Homeland Security bulletin sent out Thursday cited unsubstantiated reports that Lashkar-i-Jhangvi had claimed responsibility for Bhutto's assassination. An FBI official said that the bulletin was based on press reports and would not comment on whether the claim had been independently confirmed.

The same TIME article makes even less sense in spots.

"It is probable there are links between Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and al-Qaeda," says [Frederic Grare, a former French diplomat in Pakistan and a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace], "but it is certain they do have links to the government." He adds, "If the government itself says Lashkar-i-Jhangvi is involved, it is suicidal because it opens the door to speculation about their own role."

Indeed, while Pakistani authorities have had a hand in encouraging groups like Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and Lashkar-i-Tayyba, Islamabad has done little to systematically dismantle these jihadist "armies" now that their original purposes — fighting the Soviets and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan or fighting the Indians in Kashmir — are over.

"They have nothing else to do," says [Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution], "and they are causing mischief."

The fighting with India over Kashmir is by no means over, and the idea that terrorist groups send out suicide bombers to take out major political figures because they have nothing else to do is most fanciful. Only in America will readers take this sort of dangerous nonsense seriously.

Elsewhere in the article Cohen is quoted as saying:

"Bhutto was the only Pakistani politician willing to stand up and say, 'I don't like violent terrorists,'"

which is clearly false, as anyone who has been following the story of terrorism in Pakistan (here or elsewhere) can attest. It's the same old story: Nobody likes violent terrorists. But some people do like freedom-fighters.

And if the difference between the two is sometimes a bit blurry, well, then, that's quite handy in the propaganda sense, because the more confusing and frightening a subject, the fewer people will take it skeptically. As inhabitants of a nation terminally confused by violent terrorists, many Americans will believe almost anything.

And that makes it more and more inevitable that more and more disconnected terrorist groups will soon be described as affiliated with al Qaeda and/or Osama bin Laden, since such an affiliation is obviously the sine qua non of attracting serious American media attention ... and becoming a target in the GWOT.

~~~

As for the violence, an Interior Ministry spokesman enumerated the results of the violence in the first two days after the assassination, according to Dawn:

38 people were killed and 53 injured, 174 banks were gutted, 26 ransacked, 158 offices were burnt, 23 ransacked, 34 petrol stations were set ablaze and two damaged, 370 vehicles were set on fire and 61 damaged, 18 railway stations were torched and four ransacked, 72 train bogies were burnt, 765 shops, offices gutted and 19 offices ransacked.

According to a more detailed report from the Times of India:

Demonstrators have clashed with police and torched hundreds of buildings, trains and vehicles in the wake of the gun and suicide attack that claimed Bhutto's life on Thursday.

"In two days 38 innocent people have lost their lives and 53 have been injured," ministry spokesman Brigadier Javed Cheema told a news conference.

"At a time when the nation is mourning the death of Benazir Bhutto in a terrorist attack, some elements of criminal mentality have taken undue advantage of the situation," Cheema said.

More than 100 criminals had escaped when rioters broke open jails, he said.

But by Saturday, despite continued unrest, the spokesman was looking at the bright side:

Cheema said the overall situation was "satisfactory" on Saturday, partly due to the army's presence in several hotspots.

"The situation is getting back to normal rapidly and we hope that in a day or so life will return to normal in the country," he added.

President Pervez Musharraf earlier ordered security chiefs to take firm action to restore order to the country. Paramilitary troops have already been ordered to shoot rioters on sight in the southern city of Karachi.

Cheema also pledged that Pakistani authorities would bring to justice all the "miscreants" behind the unrest.

"I want to say that those who are involved will not be spared... they will face tough punishment," he added.

Do you want some more nonsense? CTV reports a fine bit of lingo-jingo from Cheema:

"This is not an ordinary criminal matter in which we require assistance of the international community. I think we are capable of handling it."

... in which the Interior Ministry spokesman suggests that Pakistani police are incapable of solving the small crimes on their own ... but they can handle the big ones without assistance? Yeah, sure!!

The Parliamentary election scheduled for January 8th is now in doubt. Nawaz Sharif has announced his party will boycott. Musharraf's party will run, of course. And the late Benazir Buhtto's PPP will meet on Sunday to decide whether to stand in the election or join the opposition boycott.

According to AFP, the wishes of the former PPP leader will be made known at Sunday's meeting and will be very difficult to disregard.

The PPP was to meet around 3:00pm (1000 GMT) in her home town of Naudero in the south to decide what to do next, with her husband Asif Zardari expected to read out instructions she left about the party's future.

"It will be almost impossible for the party to go against her wishes," said political analyst and columnist Shafqat Mahmood. Party officials said her son Bilawal Bhutto was favourite to take over what has become a political dynasty, with an advisory council running affairs until he finishes his studies at Britain's Oxford University.

The election commission will meet on Monday to decide whether to postpone the January 8 election, but according to the same political analyst, Shafqat Mahmood, their decision depends on the result of the PPP meeting. If PPP decide to boycott, it won't matter much whether the election commission wants to have an election on January 8th or not.

So here we are, on the edge of a great precipice, with emerging opportunities for the forces good and evil to shape the decades to come -- and our collective future now hinges on such weighty matters as whether a dead woman has left instructions to turn over the leadership of her party -- the largest opposition political party in the sixth most-populous nation on earth -- to a 19-year-old university student.

And this is democracy?? Nonsense indeed!

There are dangerous and violent times to come, for certain. But our future may have to wait, because the new prince of the democratic Pakistani opposition is still being trained -- at Oxford!

~~~

[update 1]
from Reuters India: Bhutto's son, husband to be co-leaders of party

NAUDERO, Pakistan (Reuters) - The 19-year-old son of assassinated Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, Bilawal, was on Sunday appointed chairman of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) along with his father, party officials said.

"It has been decided that Bilawal will be the chairman and Mr (Asif Ali) Zardari will be co-chairman," one of the party officials said in the southern town of Naudero, where top officials of Bhutto's party were meeting.

Asif Ali Zardari was Bhutto's husband.

[update 2]
from Dawn: Bhutto party will take part in election: husband

NAUDERO, Pakistan, Dec 30 (AFP) - Slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party will take part in national elections set for January 8, her husband Asif Ali Zardari said at a Press conference Sunday.

He also called on former premier Nawaz Sharif to reverse his decision to boycott the polls, which Sharif had announced in the wake of Bhutto's death on Thursday. “We will go to elections,” Zardari said.

[the photos]
The photos accompanying this piece depict (from top) troops patrolling in Larkana, Benazir Bhutto's hometown, amid the wreckage of burnt-out cars; (2) shops in Larkana utterly destroyed, (3) a soldier on duty in Larkana, (4) a very military-looking person shooting at Benazir Bhutto, (5) soldiers arriving in Hyperabad, and (6) police in Karachi guarding a burning trailer.

[additional reading]
Robert Fisk in the Independent : They don't blame al-Qa'ida. They blame Musharraf
Tariq Ali at London Review of Books: Daughter of the West
Tariq Ali at the Guardian: A tragedy born of military despotism and anarchy
Melanie Colburn at Mother Jones: America's Devil's Game with Extremist Islam

Burned! Meet William Chrisman, FBI Entrapment Specialist

A federal court in New Haven, Connecticut, heard startling testimony from an FBI entrapment specialist late last month in the case of an alleged terrorist supporter from Phoenix.

William Chrisman [photo] testified on November 28 and 29 in a hearing in the case against former US Navy signalman Hassan Abujihaad, taking the stand just hours after Derrick Shareef, whom Chrisman entrapped, pleaded guilty in Chicago.

Shareef had previously pleaded not guilty to a charge involving the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

In celebration of Chrisman's victory over the forces of trans-American terrorism, the New Haven Independent ran a photo of Chrisman -- apparently ending his career as an undercover agent.

That photo has since been removed. But it hasn't been lost.

William Chrisman

William Chrisman got into lots of trouble as a gang member in Camden, New Jersey.

He was convicted of two felonies: armed robbery and possession of a stolen vehicle; he says he also sold crack cocaine.

While in prison, William Chrisman converted to Islam, and now he is also known as Jameel or Jamaal Chrisman (or Crisman).

Chrisman says he wanted to join the military during the first Gulf War but he was refused because of his convictions.

“After 9/11, all the Salaafi scholars came out with a ruling,” Chrisman said — “it is imperative for Muslims to stop terrorism.”

So, according to Chrisman, he volunteered to do counter-terror work for the FBI.

Crisman's name has come to light recently because of his role in the arrests of Derrick Shareef and Hassan Abujihaad, both of whom have been mentioned quite frequently in this space during the past year or so.

Derrick Shareef

On December 6, 2006, Derrick Shareef (aka Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef) [sketch] tried to trade a pair of stereo speakers for four hand grenades, a handgun and some ammunition.

He and an accomplice had planned to detonate the grenades in CherryVale Mall, Rockford, Illinois, on the Friday before Christmas.

But the grenades and ammo were duds and Shareef was arrested immediately after receiving them.

The "arms dealer" who supplied the nonfunctional weaponry was an FBI agent.

And the accomplice who set up the deal was FBI informant William Chrisman.

Hassan Abujihaad

Hassan Abujihaad (also Abu-Jihaad), formerly Paul R. Hall [photo], was a signalman in the US Navy, serving aboard the USS Benfold in 2000 and 2001.

During that time he corresponded by email with Babar Ahmad, alleged supporter of terrorists and allegedly the proprietor of various pro-terrorist websites including Azzam Publications.

Authorities say Abujihaad shared secret information about ship movements and the best ways to attack them.

Abujihaad, whose chosen name means "Father Of The Holy War", was arrested in March of 2007, in Phoenix , Arizona, after a long investigation.

He is being held without bail in New Haven, Connecticut, charged with two counts of supporting terrorists.

His trial is scheduled to begin in March, 2008.

The Story So Far

The following timeline is reconstructed from sources including the affidavit filed against Derrick Shareef in Chicago last December and news reports from last week's hearing in New Haven, Connecticut. [Follow the links for additional information.]

2000: Hassan Abujihaad is in the US Navy, serving as a signalman aboard the USS Benfold.

October 12, 2000: Seventeen US Navy sailors are killed when their ship, the USS Cole, is attacked Aden, Yemen.

April, 2001: While still serving as a signalman aboard the USS Benfold, Abujihaad allegedly corresponds with Babar Ahmad, through Azzam Publications.

Abujihaad buys three jihadi videos, at least one of which he has delivered to him aboard the Benfold [photo]. Abujihaad also allegedly sends Ahmad confidential US Navy information.

April 29, 2001: USS Benfold sails through the Strait of Hormuz.

July, 2001: Abujihaad allegedly sends more email to Azzam Publications, praising Islamist fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya.

January, 2002: Hassan Abujihaad is granted an honorable discharge from the US Navy.

2003: Abujihaad meets Derrick Shareef at a mosque in Phoenix.

Shareef and Abujihaad live together for seven months in 2003 and 2004.

December 2nd 2003: Babar Ahmad is arrested in Britain. He is kept in police custody and questioned for six days. His house is searched intensively for three days. His computers, printer and various documents are taken away for analysis. Samples of his DNA and fingerprints are distributed to law enforcement agencies in several countries.

December 8, 2003: Babar Ahmad is released without charge.

August 5, 2004: Babar Ahmad [photo] is arrested a second time.

Telegraph: The Imperial College student accused of waging jihad in South Kensington

British police say that among Babar Ahmad's possessions, investigators find a computer (or a floppy disk -- reports vary) containing naval intelligence.

BBC News: Terror suspect 'had naval plans'

The information they characterize as "secret" could have come from Abujihaad aboard the USS Benfold.

Authorities say the information found on Ahmad's computer includes the date on which the Abujihaad and the USS Benfold's battle group would be moving through the Strait of Hormuz as well as the formation in which they would be sailing.

Further information sent to Azzam Publications allegedly describes the best way to attack them.

Other messages from Abujihaad allegedly describe the US military as "scary pussies" and praise the 2000 attack on the USS Cole as "a martyrdom operation".

Prosecutors would clearly love to nail Abujihaad for treason but they have no proof that he sent the "secret information", which on closer examination turns out to be not so secret after all. So they start an investigation, but it doesn't lead anywhere ... yet.

BBC News: The battle to banish Babar Ahmad

"If you're supporting the Taleban and the Taleban is killing American soldiers, we're alleging you're conspiring to kill American citizens abroad," Connecticut US Attorney Kevin O'Connor said in October 2004.

September / October 2006: William Chrisman is sent to Rockford, Illinois (just west of Chicago) to meet Derrick Shareef.

Chrisman finds Shareef working in a video store in Rockford, Illinois. Shareef has no place to live and is about to move in with the store manager.

Chrisman offers Shareef an alternative, and less than eight hours later Shareef moves in with Chrisman -- and his three wives and nine children!

Until Shareef is arrested in December, Chrisman will record every conversation between himself and his "target".

But Shareef suspects nothing. And they talk.

Shareef tells Chrisman about his friend Hassan Abujihaad.

Shareef says he was with Abujihaad when Abujihaad learned of Babar Ahmad's second arrest, in 2004, and that Abujihaad said "I think this is about me".

Shareef tells Chrisman about plots he and Abujihaad had discussed, including an armed assault on a recruiting office in Phoenix and a coorinated attack on a Naval base in San Diego. None of these plots ever got beyond the discussion phase, and all this is hearsay.

Chrisman wants more.

He sends Abujihaad books to gain his confidence, and starts trying to corroborate the information he's been getting from Derrick Shareef.

He also starts trying to push the old plot against the base in San Diego.

November 2006: Chrisman and Shareef write and record martyrdom videos.

Chrisman presses Abujihaad for more information.

Abujihaad begins to speak in code.

Abujihaad says "Under the Black Leaves" for the initials UBL meaning Osama (Usama) bin Laden. He uses "L" to mean logistics and he refers to plots as meals: "cold meals" are obsolete but "fresh meals" are still considered viable.

Abujihaad correctly suspects the FBI is monitoring his conversations, but he doesn't seem to suspect that he's speaking (directly and indirectly through Shareef) to an FBI informant.

November 30, 2006: Chrisman gets a phone call from the undercover FBI agent posing as a weapons dealer, asking whether Shareef is ready to buy any weapons. Chrisman and Shareef then talk about "places where they could conduct an attack against civilians."

From the affidavit filed against Derrick Shareef, written by FBI agent Jared Ruddy:

Chrisman asked if Shareef believed it was a better idea to “hit the mall”.
Shareef responded that the mall was “just one potential place.”
...
Chrisman: “I mean, alright, we gotta look at it this way, we want to disrupt Christmas.”
Shareef: “Oh hell yeah, the mall is where it’s at.”

An attack against a facility involved in interstate commerce is clearly a federal offense.

Chrisman then asked Shareef if he believed that they needed grenades for the attack.
Shareef responded that they did.

Chrisman: “You go in there and toss a grenade, and no one’s gonna know who did it.”
Shareef: “No one’s gonna be expecting no shit like that.”
...
Shareef: “The last thing anybody gonna be thinking about at the mall is a damn grenade.”

The last thing Shareef is thinking of is a damn grenade! It's a good thing Chrisman thought of it!

Chrisman: “What targets you wanna hit, the mall’s good?”
Shareef: “Any place that’s crowded, like a mall is good, anything, any government facility is good.”
...
Shareef: “Here, we’re gonna check out some places, see where you could possibly lob one, do you toss it, do you, could you just sit it down and tip off, speed walk away.”

That's it!

You just sit it down and tip off! You just speed walk away!!

December 1, 2006: Chrisman hears from the undercover arms dealer and now he tries to solidify the weapons deal with Shareef.

Chrisman: “He said he had an order for 11, . . . 11 pineapples.”
Shareef: “Shit, did he do that so he could give ‘em to us wholesale?”
Chrisman: “No, he said that he’d sell them to us for $50 a pop.”

Shareef, for all his martyrdom video bravado, does not want to die. He's trying to figure out how to detonate multiple grenades in a shopping mall -- and survive!

So Chrisman lies to him about how the grenades ("the pineapples") work:

Chrisman: “You can change the time up to 15 seconds.”
Shareef: “How do you do that?,”
Chrisman: “You crank it, there’s a crank on it.”
Shareef: How do you know you cranking that shit the right way?,”
Chrisman: “You gotta listen.”
Shareef: “And then explode.”
Chrisman: “He said the longer you take, the harder the pin, the harder the hammer.”
Shareef: “So that shit gonna be like Boom!”

Sure, Derrick. That shit gonna be like Boom!

Chrisman takes Shareef to the CherryVale Mall. They've already cased the place once before; now they go back again. And when they get there:

Chrisman: “This place gonna be tore up in about two weeks.”

Shareef, still looking to save his hide, suggests detonating the grenades in garbage cans. The cans would contain the shrapnel and direct the blast upwards, causing much less damage to shoppers than if they were detonated in the open. But Chrisman is so delighted to see any sign of cooperation from Shareef that he actually compliments him on this exceedingly stupid idea:

Chrisman: “I’m glad you came up with the idea, though, the garbage can. That’s sweet.”
Shareef: “That’s pandemonium. The garbage going to be shrapnel.”

Right, Derrick! All the people are gonna get killed by flying paper cups!

Chrisman can't supply the money (or even the speakers) for the grenades -- unless he wants to entrap himself. So he keeps pushing Shareef:

Chrisman: “Don’t forget, man, we should get the grenades some time next week.”
Shareef: “Yeah.”
Chrisman: “So you should try to get as much flous [an Arabic term for money] as you can get ‘cause we need it.”
Shareef: “I got a little change in the bank.”
Chrisman: “All you need is like $100, that’s two grenades.”

December 6, 2006: Chrisman and Shareef go for a drive in Chrisman's car. They pick up Shareef's speakers, then Chrisman drives Shareef to a store parking lot for his meeting with the phony "arms dealer" (the undercover agent or UCA).

Shareef then opened the trunk to Chrisman’s vehicle and showed the UCA a set of speakers.

After a brief discussion about the speakers, Shareef picked up the speakers and carried them to the open trunk of the UCA’s vehicle.

Chrisman did not walk with Shareef and the UCA to the UCA’s car.

Chrisman knows many things Shareef doesn't -- including the fact that the "arms deal" is being recorded. He wouldn't want to appear in the video, would he?

At the trunk of the UCA’s vehicle, the UCA advised Shareef that he had locked the weapons in a lock box, and he kept them in a lock box in the event police ever stopped him.

The UCA then opened a lock box in the trunk of his vehicle and showed Shareef four non-functioning grenades, a 9 millimeter hand gun, and several rounds of non-functioning ammunition.
...

Shareef asked the UCA how long between the time the grenade pin was pulled and the time that the grenade went off.

The UCA explained that the time was approximately three to five seconds.

Shareef must realize at this point that Chrisman was lying about the fifteen second lead time, and may be hoping to forget about the whole idea in view of this very inconvenient fact. But he has no idea how many other things Chrisman has been lying about, and he also has no idea that his luck has just run out!

The UCA then closed the lock box, Shareef took key to the lock box, and Shareef picked up the lock box. Shareef then placed the lock box containing the purported weapons inside the trunk of Chrisman’s car. At the time that Shareef placed the lock box in the trunk, the UCA gave a pre-determined signal to agents who were surveilling the transaction, and the agents arrested Shareef without incident.

So let us recap, shall we? Derrick Shareef was arrested after placing a box of non-functional grenades in the trunk of Chrisman's car, after being driven by Chrisman to a meeting set up by Chrisman in order to get the grenades as suggested by Chrisman for the attack on the CherryVale Mall as suggested by Chrisman -- who also pushed for a firm commitment to a date, because "we want to disrupt Christmas". Who's "we"??

Derrick Shareef has been in prison ever since, and will be for many years to come, no matter what happens next. And William Chrisman is a hero.

The billions of dollars we spend every year on security protects us against what?

Winter Patriot: Rockford, Illinois: Terrorist Plot Foiled? Or Just Another Knucklehead Stung?

Chrisman calls Abujihaad to tell him about Shareef's arrest and presses for a confession.

Meanwhile, details emerging from the affidavit filed against Shareef scream "entrapment!"

WP: More on Derrick Shareef, the "Air Grenadist" of Rockford, Illinois

A week and a half after the arrest, in Rockford, Illinois, residents finally begin to relax after a jolt of fear.

WP: Rockford Breathes a Sigh of Relief, Safe from the Menace of Derrick Shareef

December 20, 2006: Shareef [sketch] waives two hearings: one in which the government would have been required to present evidence against him, the other in which he could have requested bail.

And it turns out that the law under which Shareef is charged defines a grenade as a weapon of mass destruction.

WP: Appearances: Derrick Shareef Appears In Court; US Invasion of Iraq Appears Justified

January 2007: The Shareef story makes international news.

WP: Jerusalem Post Stokes The War On Muslims Even "Better" Than FOX "News"!

January 9, 2007: Derrick Shareef pleads not guilty on one count pertaining to attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and a second count of conspiracy to commit arson in a facility used for interstate commerce.

WP: Derrick Shareef Pleads Not Guilty -- Trial Date To Be Set Next Month

February 23, 2007: U.S. District Judge David H. Coar orders a psychological examination to determine whether Shareef is fit for trial.

WP: Judge Orders Tests To Determine Whether Alleged Terrorist Wannabe Derrick Shareef Is Competent To Stand Trial

March 7, 2007: Hassan Abujihaad is arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, where he had been working for a parcel delivery service.

BBC News:
Terror charges for ex-US sailor

Abujihaad is taken to New Haven, Connecticut to await trial on charges of supporting terrorism in connection with the secrets he allegedly sent to Babar Ahmad via email from the USS Benfold.

The trial is in Connecticut because Babar Ahmad's Azzam Publications once used a server located there.

Tim Gaynor of Reuters via The Scotsman:
Former U.S. sailor arrested on terror charges

March 23, 2007: Abujihaad is indicted, charged with two counts: "material support of terrorism" and "disclosing previously classified information relating to the national defense".

April 4, 2007: Abujihaad pleads not guilty.

WP: Former USN Enlistee Pleads Not Guilty To Spying For Terrorists

WP: Ex-USN 'Terror-Spy' Knew Derrick Shareef Before He Was A Detonator

George Smith, Dick Destiny, The Register, April 12, 2007
Loose mouth and loose change - $5 tip leads to terror finance rap

May 23, 2007: Derrick Shareef is found competent to stand trial.

WP: Air Grenadist Cleared For Courthouse Performance, But No Date Set

May 24, 2007: Abujihaad is denied bail. Federal prosecutors admit they have no "forensic footprint" linking the information found on Ahmad's disk with Hassan Abujihaad.

WP: 'Father Of The Holy War' To Be Held Without Bail As Bogus Alleged Plots Grow And Intertwine

November 22, 2007: The trial of Hassan Abujihaad is scheduled to begin February 25, 2008.

WP: Trial Date Set For 'Father Of The Holy War' And His $5 Terrorist Tip

Morning of November 28, 2007: In New Haven, FBI agent David G. Dillon [photo] testifies against Hassan Abujihaad and plays recordings made by William Chrisman.

Dillon explains what the recorded conversations mean; that "under the black leaves" means Osama bin Laden, and so on.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, Derrick Shareef changes his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" on one of his two charges -- the attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The government will not reveal whether Shareef is cooperating in the investigation against Abujihaad, but it has been reported that the second charge against Shareef, pertaining to arson and interstate commerce, will probably be dropped.

In connection with this story it is reported for the first time that Shareef's trial was scheduled to begin December 10, 2007. Now it is not clear whether Derrick Shareef will ever come to trial.

Afternoon of November 28, 2007: William Chrisman takes the stand in New Haven, where he testifies for the afternoon and much of the following day. In his testimony, Chrisman discloses certain details which might have been useful for an entrapment defense on behalf of Derrick Shareef, had Shareef not already changed his plea.

WP: Government Tries To Introduce New Evidence Against 'Father Of The Holy War'

November 29, 2007: New Haven Independent runs an article called "Betrayal Revealed" with a photo of William Chrisman alongside FBI agent David Dillon. It's the only known photo of Chrisman. Why did the FBI decide to burn him?

And how did they get Derrick Shareef to plead guilty in Illinois just hours before William Chrisman appeared in court in Connecticut and explained how Shareef came to be arrested?

before December 5, 2007: New Haven Independent removes the photograph of Chrisman and Dillon from "Betrayal Revealed" and replaces it with a shot of a US Attorney and a paralegal. Apparently the FBI didn't intend to burn Chrisman after all.

December 10, 2007: Trial of Derrick Shareef potentially scheduled to begin.

January 4, 2008: US District Judge Mark Kravitz will hear oral arguments and then rule on whether the newly disclosed information can be considered as evidence against Abujihaad in his upcoming trial.

February 25, 2008: Trial of Hassan Abujihaad scheduled to begin.

Unanswered Questions

It's been interesting so far, but what's even more interesting is what we haven't been told.

How much has the FBI paid Chrisman for his "volunteer" counter-terror work? He says he was paid $8,500 for the two months he worked on the Shareef case, plus $1,200 for the cases he worked on in the four previous years. David Dillon testified that the FBI had paid Chrisman $22,000 so far.

Why did the FBI send Chrisman to meet Shareef?

Why did Shareef change his plea to guilty? Is there a secret arrangement in place? And has Shareef been cooperating with the investigation of Abujihaad?

How did the feds manage to get Shareef to change his plea on the same day that Chrisman first testified in court? Were they concerned that if Shareef and his attorney knew what Chrisman was saying in New Haven, they might claim entrapment?

What kind of legal representation has Shareef been getting? He waived his bail hearing. He waived the evidentiary hearing. He pleaded guilty before the trail was scheduled to start. So far, he's liable for a minimum of 20 years (some say 30), and the government hasn't had to present a single bit of evidence against him. Must be nice!

Why did the feds decide to burn Chrisman? He is burned, isn't he? Or do the feds think Muslims will fall for his game again? On second thought, some of them might. If they're as clueless as Derrick Shareef, they'll fall for anything. But if chumps like Shareef are not instigated, how much danger do they really pose?

Will the judge allow all this new evidence to be introduced against Abujihaad at trial? It's all hearsay (Shareef says Abujihaad told him he gave secrets to Ahmad but Abujihaad denies it) or irrelevant (even if Abujihaad and Shareef did discuss attacking a base in San Diego, that doesn't prove Abujihaad gave secrets to terrorists) or illegally gathered (according to Abujihaad's attorneys, Dan E. LaBelle and Robert G. Golger, who point to portions of the USA PATRIOT Act struck down in September by a judge in another case).

Some observers think the FBI has turned its big guns against Abujihaad because he might get them Babar Ahmad, which would be a propaganda coup if nothing else.

There's also the considerable propaganda value to be had if they can convict Abujihaad; already Shareef is being described as a "convicted mall bomber" even though he never bombed anything -- and to the best of our knowledge, never hurt anybody!

As for William Chrisman, the FBI probably didn't count on photographs of him being published.

But they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, can they? Oh well.

FBI entrapment expert William Chrisman (L) with FBI agent David Dillon.

The Big Picture

In a country of 300 million, at least 2 million of whom are in prison, does it really matter, in the big picture, whether another entrapment victim spends most of his life in jail? Probably not.

If Abujihaad is guilty as charged, then he deserves to be punished. I can't see anything other than entrapment in the Shareef case.

For some people, this case is about exposing an international terrorist conspiracy, but the conspiracy they're trying to expose probably doesn't exist:

According to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald,

"If [Shareef] was being directed by overseas terrorists, he wouldn't have been trading two stereo speakers to buy grenades."

For others, it's about something much more sinister.

Derrick Shareef, "the convicted mall bomber" has become a poster child for the Homegrown Terrorist Fearmongering Campaign, along with such notables as Matin Siraj, the so-called "convicted subway bomber".

Siraj was entrapped by Osama Eldawoody [photo], who is now collecting $3200 a month from the NYPD because his exposure has ruined his career as an informant, but his work as an informant has ruined his credibility to the point that can't get a job anywhere else.

Siraj, the "subway bomber", didn't have a bomb of any kind -- not even a dud!

And yet, because of Shareef and Siraj and some other dolts entrapped by FBI informants, we have to give up our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms!

It's not as if there were no other options.

A Smarter Approach To Terror

To an independent observer who is not involved in trying to sell fear and propaganda to enrich those in the security and prison industries, and who is seriously interested in reducing the already very slight risk of non-state-sponsored terrorism, many smarter approaches to handling terrorist wannabes like Derrick Shareef and gullible fools like Matin Siraj [photo] suggest themselves.

I submit that it would have been much less costly, and equally or even more effective in the grand scale of things, to send someone to see Derrick Shareef, not with the intention of putting him in prison for the rest of his life, but of helping him to get his life straightened out. I don't mean a babysitter to sit with him and pamper him. I mean a belt across the head from an Arabic-speaking Muslim who says:

LISTEN UP, CHUMP!

One: Terrorism is not Allah's way. If you're upset because of the way the US hurts innocent Muslims, that's understandable. But if you attack innocent people because of it, then you're no better than they are.

Two: If you attack people here, it will give the warmongers the pretext they're looking for: to feed the war in the Middle East and to crack down on Muslims (and others) in the US.

Three: You don't have any weapons, you don't have any independent access to weapons, you don't have any money to buy weapons even if you had access, and you don't have any knowledge of weapons. You don't have any common sense either, so you're not likely to do much damage -- except to yourself.

Four: The government already knows all about you! Why do you think I'm here? And we're watching you, because we know you're a chump! So smarten up, and you might even keep your poor dumb ass out of jail for a while!

Instead it's

Come and live with me and my three wives and my nine kids, because I'm a Muslim and I know Muslims are supposed to look after one another.

What do you want to attack? The mall's good! because I'm a counter-terrorist so my job is to instigate terrorism.

Do you think we need grenades for that? I can get some! even though this is clearly entrapment, that doesn't even matter anymore.

The War on Terror has changed everything and now there are certain types of crimes for which the regular laws no longer apply. Entrapment used to be considered "a complete defense" -- if you could prove you were enticed into committing a crime that was all you needed to do: you walked! Now, if the crime of which you are accused involves terrorism, entrapment is no longer a complete defense; it's not a defense at all.

And that's just part of the problem.

~~~ news ~~~

Melissa Bailey in the New Haven Independent, November 28, 2007:
Ode To Osama
[mirrored here]

Josh Meyer in the Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2007:
Ex-sailor accused of plotting to attack San Diego base
[mirrored here]

John Christoffersen of the Associated Press in Newsday, November 29, 2007:
Government plays more coded calls in sailor terrorism hearing
[mirrored here]

Michael P. Mayko in the Connecticut Post, November 29, 2007:
FBI informant testifies in terror case
[mirrored here]

Melissa Bailey in the New Haven Independent, November 29, 2007:
Betrayal Revealed
[mirrored here]

Alison Leigh Cowan in the New York Times, November 29, 2007:
Federal Informer Testifies Against Sailor Accused of Aiding Terrorism
[mirrored here]

John Christoffersen of the Associated Press in the Washington Post, December 2, 2007:
FBI Informant's Role Emerges in Court Hearing
[mirrored here]

~~~ views ~~~

George Smith, Dick Destiny, November 29, 2007:
US NURSES TERROR CASE IN PRESS: Grim prospects for Hassan Abujihaad

George Smith, Dick Destiny, December 2, 2007:
ROTTEN EGG INFORMANT IN TERROR CASE: So-called patriot

Scott P. Richert, Chronicles Magazine dot org (Your Home for Traditional Conservatism), December 4, 2007:
Muslim Terrorists in Court: The Dominoes Start to Fall

~~~ related WP series ~~~

Derrick Shareef:
Derrick And The Detonators

Hassan Abujihaad:
Father of the Holy War

Matin Siraj:
Remember Me To Herald Square

Uninformed Nonsense: Juan Cole, Rashid Rauf, Liquid Bombs and Whole Cloth

Today's reading is from "Combating Muslim Extremism" by Professor Juan Cole, of the highly respected blog "Informed Comment", as published in the November 19, 2007, edition of The Nation. The piece reached me via George Mason University's History News Network.

Professor Cole's essay includes a short passage about the one "terrorism" case with which I am most familiar, that of Rashid Rauf [photo] and the so-called "Liquid Bombers". I am very unhappy to report that this passage contains a significant amount of fiction.

The rest of Professor Cole's essay may make perfect sense, or it may not. I don't know. For the purposes of this essay, I have set myself a much smaller task: to look at a single paragraph in depth, and to separate what is false from what is true.

For ease of discussion, I have broken the passage in question into four smaller sections, as follows:

The Administration clearly is not very interested in doing the hard work of dealing effectively with small fringe terrorist networks. That is why Osama bin Laden is at large and the CIA unit tracking him disbanded.

This is a highly contentious subject and the assertion is not only unsubstantiated but also absurd. How, pray tell, does the good professor know why Osama bin Laden is at large? Does he really expect us to believe that the administration talks about al Qaeda all the time because it considers al Qaeda a "fringe terrorist network" which is not worth dealing with?

Does he really believe that the administration hasn't made a serious effort to catch Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset whose family does business with the Bush family, because the administration is not very interested in doing the hard work?

Do we really spend $500 billion a year trying to do something the administration is not very interested in doing? I'm sorry to say so, but this explanation cuts no ice with me. So let us move on.

Next, Professor Cole says:

Successful counterterrorism involves good diplomacy and good police work.

And here I agree. I wish Professor Cole had thought to use a better illustration, though:

A case in point is the plot last summer by young Muslim men in London to bomb several airliners simultaneously using liquid explosives in innocent-looking bottles and detonators hidden in disposable cameras. Contrary to the allegations of skeptics, the techniques they envisaged were perfectly workable.

... because here I most emphatically disagree. The techniques envisaged by the plotters were utterly impossible, and if you're willing to spend a few more minutes reading, I will tell you why this is so. But first, let's deal with the rest of the passage.

Professor Cole continues:

The plotters were determined enough to make chilling martyrdom videos.

But determination is no substitute for technical ability. And if they couldn't do it, then it really doesn't matter how badly they wanted to do it! I wish I could flap my arms and fly. I really, really, wish I could do that! But I can't. So I won't.

And the alleged plotters could not have done what they were allegedly plotting to do.

How Do I Know This?

If I dare to speak with a voice of authority about this case, it is because I have done the research.

On the night of August 9, 2006, pro-Bush "Democrat" Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Senatorial primary in Connecticut to the anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont. As soon as the result became clear, the Republican noise machine suddenly shifted into high gear, calling Democrats all over the country "Defeatocrats" and "soft on terror" because the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut had chosen Lamont over the faux-Democrat Lieberman. At the time I was guest-hosting a high-traffic blog, and I figured this was a newsworthy story. So I started digging. And since I would be writing for a larger than normal audience, I started digging hard. I've been digging hard at this story for the past 15 months.

While I was composing the piece, which came to be known as "An Avalanche Of Bullshit", breaking news arrived from the UK, telling us about two dozen Muslims who had been arrested for allegedly plotting to attack a dozen intercontinental airlines simultaneously. The synchronicity -- Democrats soft on terror while British allies foil a horrifying plot -- seemed too good to be true, and I kept digging.

Within a few days the British press had obtained the names of those who had been arrested (or so they thought: they wound up paying dearly for a couple of minor errors, but that's another story). The papers printed the names, and I set up Google alerts for all of them. (It was because of my Google alert for Rashid Rauf that I found Professor Cole's article at the History News Network.)

For the past 15 months, I have received email whenever any of those names appeared in any news or blog item, and I have read everything about all of them. In addition, I have done more reporting -- and more detailed reporting -- on this story than anyone else, anywhere.

I don't mean to be immodest here -- just truthful. Since August of 2006, I have spent hundreds of hours reading about this case. I've written an extensive series (of which this is the 21st installment) which links to hundreds of source articles. And at my other blog, "Winter Parking", I have posted copies of more than 160 news articles concerning the alleged mastermind and al Qaeda connection, Rashid Rauf.

Because of the nature of the alleged plot, I also did considerable research into the chemistry behind the alleged method of attack, and I acknowledge and thank my science adviser, Bruce, who has that rare combination -- a PhD and good common sense. Bruce's help has been most valuable, as has the assistance of a former Army explosives expert with whom I consulted while I was working on the Ronald Swerlein story.

A Simple Chemistry Lesson

According to the reports which scared us silly in August of 2006, the "Liquid Bombers" were allegedly plotting to take down as many as a dozen airliners en route to the USA from the UK, using bombs made from common household liquids. They were allegedly going to smuggle their ingredients onto the airplanes in soft-drink bottles, then create and detonate the bombs while the planes were in flight. Let's do a little chemistry and see how credible these allegations are.

There are three commonly-known explosives which can be made from hydrogen peroxide and other household ingredients. Hydrogen peroxide is a key ingredient because it has been mentioned in all technical accounts of the bomb-making aspect of the alleged plot, and also because the alleged al Qaeda connection, Rashid Rauf, faces trial in Pakistan for possession of articles for the purpose of terroism, in which the articles in question are bottles of hydrogen peroxide.

The three peroxide-based explosives which have been discussed in conjunction with this case are TATP, HMTD, and MEKP. For legal reasons, I won't link to the recipes for any of these compounds, and for security reasons I won't give enough detail for anyone to make them. I will, however, give you enough detail so that you can understand why the alleged plotters simply couldn't make any of these three explosives, not in sufficient quantity, and not on intercontinental flights.

TATP

Let's start with the first peroxide-based explosive mentioned in the press in connection with this case. Triacetone triperoxide, aka TATP, aka Acetone Peroxide, is reportedly called "the Mother of Satan" by the terrorists who try to make it, because it is so unstable. In other words, it tends to detonate prematurely.

But according to the official story of 7/7, TATP was the explosive used by the four notoriously uninvestigated London Bombers, each of whom supposedly wandered around with 10 kilograms of TATP in their backpacks before the "bombs" detonated, miraculously blowing the undercarriages of the trains upwards into the passenger compartments. It's quite a magical explosive, and according to an article published in the UK by the Guardian, TATP may have been the explosive the alleged plotters were allegedly plotting to make.

In a post called "To Mix The Impossible Bomb", I examined the process by which TATP is made. Here's a short and deliberately vague outline:

Start by mixing the acetone and the hydrogen peroxide together, in the right proportions, using lab-quality glassware (otherwise the impurities will destroy you). And be very diligent about chilling the mixture. You'll need to keep it cold throughout the entire process, otherwise you may get a weak and premature explosion. Add the third liquid, very gradually, stirring constantly and checking the temperature frequently. The addition of the third liquid starts the reaction, and the reaction gives off a lot of heat.

This will be inconvenient for you because the liquid ingredients are highly concentrated and the fumes are extremely noxious. But you need to keep the mixture very close to the freezing point, so you must add the third liquid as slowly as necessary to avoid overheating. When you've added enough of the third liquid, you can stop stirring. But you have to keep the mixture cold, and you have to wait.

The reaction is a slow one and it produces a white crystal. After six or eight hours (some sources say two or three days!), you can pour the result through a fine paper filter, to separate the crystals from the liquid. You can discard the liquid, but you should keep the crystals. They must be rinsed and dried before they can be used.

These explosive crystals formed by this reaction are very unstable and relatively powerful. But airplane fuselages are not cigar tubes. They are built to withstand a significant pressure differential, otherwise they couldn't fly at high altitudes. So it takes a significant quantity of these explosive crystals -- roughly 250 grams (half a pound) in a properly shaped charge, to blow a hole in the fuselage of a modern passenger airplane, according to one demolition expert whose work I read while researching the original series.

If all goes well, you can get as much as 8 grams (a quarter-ounce) of TATP crystals per liter (quart) of liquid. And you need about 250 grams (half a pound) of TATP, so you'll need roughly 32 litres (8 gallons) of liquid ingredients. Now: How are you going to mix that? If you do it all in one batch, you'll need a 40-liter (10-gallon) beaker, which will be difficult to smuggle onto the plane without attracting attention. Of course you can make the TATP in small batches, but then you will need multiple teams, and that means you'll need multiple restrooms.

How many restrooms on an intercontinental flight do you suppose could be occupied by Muslim men bearing glassware and large bags of ice, without attracting attention? It hardly seems possible to fit a 2-liter (half-gallon) flask in an airplane sink full of ice, but if you can do that, you'll only need sixteen teams (and sixteen washrooms). And of course if you make it in smaller batches, you'll need even more teams.

In summary, you will have big problems -- insurmountable problems! -- if you decide to blow up the planes using TATP. So what are your other options?

HMTD and MEKP

An article published by the New York Times on August 30, 2006 (which British subscribers were not allowed to read!), suggested that the alleged plotters may have been thinking of making Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, or HMTD. And a bit of research revealed that while HMTD is made from a different combination of liquids than TATP, the processes by which they are produced are virtually identical. Crucially, you can't make HMTD any faster than you can make TATP. Again you'll have to chill the mixture and wait for crystals to form, then filter them out, wash them and dry them before they can be used.

If you try to make HMTD on a plane, you'll run into all the logistical problems inherent in trying to make TATP. In other words, it's impossible, unless you get all the passengers and crew to help you.

So what's left? Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, or MEKP.

The idea that the alleged plotters were planning on making MEKP has been floated on a few internet discussion boards, although to the best of my knowledge it has never been suggested in any mainstream news report. It does represent a third possibility, however, so the chemistry behind the synthesis of MEKP deserves some study.

MEKP differs from TATP and HMTD in that the reaction produces an explosive liquid, rather than crystals. So instead of filtering the result, the MEKP must be decanted -- never an easy task on a moving plane. And again, the plotters will need either an enormous piece of glassware and a way to keep it cold, or else uninterrupted access to more than a dozen washrooms for several hours at a time.

In other words, forget it. It can't be done, not without an enormous number of accomplices, not without the active cooperation of the flight crew, not unless the Atlantic crossing takes an inordinately long time.

To envisage one attack succeeding using this method is an excercise in fantasy. To envisage a dozen such attacks succeeding simultaneously is madness.

I do not say that the alleged plotters were not plotting along these lines. I have no way to know whether they were plotting or not; assuming they were, I have no way to know whether they were mad or simply clueless. But I do know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the alleged plot as described was absolutely impossible.

And to make a statement such as

Contrary to the allegations of skeptics, the techniques they envisaged were perfectly workable.

without offering any supporting evidence, or any indication of having done any research, is ... well ... I was about to say "unfathomable", but let's just say a statement like that doesn't bring any credit to its author.

And considering what's at stake -- ridiculous airport security, enhanced police powers, and further legitimization of the GWOT -- Professor Cole's very superficial treatment of this apparently bogus case strikes me as not only "uninformed nonsense" but much, much worse. And here's the reason:

None of this uninformed nonsense would have been necessary if Professor Cole had merely wished to establish the point on which I noted our agreement, namely that "successful counterterrorism involves good diplomacy and good police work". If that was the point he was trying to make, there were a thousand ways he could have illustrated it. And so ...

One cannot help but wonder why Professor Cole would tell a tale made of whole cloth, as it were. Could he be so woefully uninformed? Or could he be trying to prop up the phony war on phony terror? The questions are not pleasant, but then again, none of this is pleasant.

~~~

For my best estimate of what may have driven the alleged plotters, please see "Inadequate Deception: The Impossible Plots Of The Terror War".

~~~



In recent "Liquid Bomber" news, Rashid Rauf's petition for a bail hearing was accepted by a judge in Lahore last week after being rejected in Rawalpindi last month. He is scheduled to return to court in Lahore on November 6th.

As the Frontier Post reported:

On the orders of Judge Sakhi Muhammad Kahut, the kids and wife of the accused Rashid Rauf were allowed to meet him at the premises of the courtyard of the ATC [Anti-Terror Court] here.

When accused Rashid Rauf met his family he began to cry as the environment became sentimental and emotional [scenes] were witnessed.

The meeting continued for 20 minutes.

~~~

NEW! IMPROVED!
A previously posted version of this piece was longer and somewhat speculative in spots. It also contained some crucial spelling mistakes. I have removed passages that may have been extraneous and/or misleading, and fixed the spelling, too. I apologize for any confusion caused by this deviation from the normal procedure of editing articles before posting them.

~~~

twenty-first in a series