Anwar al-Awlaki, man of mystery

A short while ago, I said that I was confident that Anwar al-Awlaki was an evil bastard. While I remain confident that the sentiments he has expressed are evil, everything else about the man now seems mysterious.

Is he dead? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the notorious crotch-bomber (and subject of several previous posts) has claimed that Anwar is still alive. It's unclear whether he spoke metaphorically.

Still, it's fair to ask if we have proof of his death beyond the word of the U.S. government. According to the Guardian, the drone attack left physical remains:

A senior tribal chief who helped bury the bodies in a cemetery in Jawf told the Associated Press that seven people were killed in the strike, their bodies completely charred. The chief said the brother of one of the dead, who had given the group shelter in his home, had witnessed the strike.

According to the chief, the witness said Awlaki was travelling in a pick-up with six other people on their way to neighbouring Marib province. They stopped for breakfast in the desert and were sitting on the ground to eat when they spotted drones, so they rushed to their truck. A Hellfire missile fired from a drone struck the truck, leaving it a charred husk and killing all of those inside. The chief spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be connected to the group, and he did not identify the witness.

Why would they rush to the truck? Seems to me that the wisest course of action would have been to spread out in seven different directions.

Frankly, this story doesn't add up. Why didn't they eat breakfast in the home of the brother? Why did these men get in the truck, travel a very short distance, then get out and eat? They cannot have traveled far, because they were observed by the brother.

This eyewitness account seems more than a little odd. At any rate, since the remains were unidentifiable and the witness is also unidentified, we really don't have proof that al-Awlaki was killed.

For whom did he work? This far-right site notes oft-heard reports that al-Awlaki was recruited by the CIA. A ludicrous claim? Maybe. Maybe not.

After the announcement of al-Awlaki's death, quite a few people pointed to this bizarre story which appeared in the U.K.'s Daily Mail a year ago. The headline: "Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks.'"

New documents have been obtained which apparently detail how Anwar Al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, rubbed shoulders with high-ranking military personnel just months after the atrocities.

Fox News claim to have acquired documents that state that Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense's headquarters as part of the military's outreach program to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

American-born Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, 'was considered to be an up and coming member of the Islamic community'.

'After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel'.

Awlaki was apparently interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the week after the September 11 attacks because of his links to the three hijackers.

Nawaf al-Hazmi,Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour were all aboard Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.

Al-Awlaki was a former chaplain at George Washington University -- which just happens to have longstanding ties to the CIA. (Example.) Could American intelligence have recruited him at the time, or earlier?

Facebook. Al-Awlaki communicated with jihadis via Facebook, which I consider pretty damned suspicious behavior. How likely is it that an alleged Islamic holy warrior would use Facebook, an internet service which is notorious for compromising the privacy of users? A service funded by the CIA and owned by a Jew? A service which requires users to divulge their cell-phone numbers in order to gain an account, even though modern cell phones have GPS tracking devices baked in?

Arguably, al-Awlaki's Facebook account provided Uncle with an easy way to track the names, addresses and physical locations of any young dimwit who might be attracted to jihadist rhetoric.

Let's get back to the crotch bomber. After the incident, Al-Awlaki spoke at length about the putative bomber:

"Umar Farouk is one of my students; I had communications with him. And I support what he did."

This is jihadi boilerplate, and not very informative. Why didn't he address any of the many mysteries surrounding the crotch bomber case? See, for example, here and here and here.

In particular, I'd like to know who videotaped the flight. I'd also like to know how Farouk got aboard the flight in Amsterdam without a passport. Originally, we were told that a well-dressed accomplice helped him board as a "refugee;" strangely, both the accomplice and the "refugee" story soon disappeared from official accounts.

The Timeline. This site offers a rather thorough overview of al-Awlaki's life. History Commons also provides valuable details. Let's look at some noteworthy entries:

June 6, 1990: Applies for Social Security card. Claims he was born in Sana’a, Yemen.

June 8, 1990: SSN 521-77-7121 issued to Awlaki.

He was born in New Mexico in 1971, a fact which he might have mentioned to the folks at the Social Security office. His family moved to Yemen in 1978; he came back to the United States on June 5, 1990.

In 1991, he started attending at a university in Colorado, and was graduated in 1994 with a degree in civil engineering. However, he spent much of that time period popping in and out of the country.

1993: Awlaki visits Afghanistan. “My impression was that he didn’t like it there,” Abdul Belgasem, a fellow student at CSU, tells Time magazine. “He wouldn’t have gone with al-Qaeda. He didn’t like the way they lived.”

Shortly after he got his degree, al-Awlaki began his career as an imam. It seems likely that al-Awlaki was one of the Denver operatives who, in 1994, set up secure communications for Osama Bin Laden using U.S. Army lines. See here.

However...

August 1996: Busted for soliciting a prostitute in San Diego. Pleads guilty to a lesser charge. Enrolls in HIV and AIDS education program and fined $400.

Time uncertain: Arrested by San Diego police “for hanging around a school.”

There was another prostitution bust in 1997.

Starting in 1998, he was the vice president of a charity accused of funding Al Qaeda. This fact makes his visit to the Pentagon all the more remarkable.

January 1999: Enrolls in San Diego State University master’s in educational leadership program. SDSU spokesman says the school does not have records showing Awlaki earned a degree.

Why would he enroll in such a program?

1999-2000: During its investigation, FBI learns that Awlaki knows individuals from the Holy Land Foundation and others involved in raising money for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Sources alleged that Aulaqi had other extremist connections. (9/11 Commission Report)

February 2000: Four calls between Awlaki and Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi who helped Al-Hamzi and Almihdhar find an apartment in San Diego. An FBI agent tells 9/11 Commission staff he is “98 percent sure” that the two hijackers were using al-Bayoumi’s phone at this time.

Early 2000: Visited by a subject of a Los Angeles FBI investigation closely associated with Blind Sheikh [Omar Abdel] Rahman. (Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11)

Early 2000: Several sources tell FBI that Alwaki “had closed-door meetings in San Diego” with Alhazmi, al-Midhar and another unidentified person “whom al-Bayoumi had asked to help the hijackers.” (Congressional Joint Inquiry)

Feb. 3, 2000: FBI electronic communication, background searches re: Awlaki. (9/11 Commission report)

March 2000: FBI closes its investigation, stating “the imam … does not meet the criterion for [further] investigation.”

One wonders what the guy would have to do to meet their criterion. According to History Commons, al-Awlaki served as the "spiritual guide" to the San Diego-based hijackers.

As most of you know, many mysteries surround those two men, who, if you believe certain reports, even had the ability to be in two places at the same time. They lived in an open, above-ground fashion -- with an FBI informant.

Here's what I wrote them on an earlier occasion:

They clearly had dangerous histories. The FBI knew all about them from taps on the father-in-law's phone. Supposedly, the CIA gave the FBI a data dump on the two, although the documentation may or may not have gotten lost in the mail. They were allowed to fly in and out of the United States, meeting with all sorts of dubious characters, and living on nobody-knows-what source of income. Evidence suggests that they may have been in (and out of) the country since 1996.

They had a listed phone number, accessible to anyone with internet access. They had a California DMV record. They had a U.S. bank account.

And they were shacking up with a freaking FBI informant.

You probably could have found them in about ten minutes, even without FBI authority. They did everything short of sending Christmas cards to the Hoover building. Nevertheless, Bob Fuller of the Bureau couldn't find them.

Back to our timeline. In early 2001, al-Awlaki moved to Virginia (home of the spooks) and began his career at George Washington University, where he pursues a PhD in "Human Resource Development."

April 2001: Al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour arrive in Falls Church and attend Dar Al-Hijra mosque. Awlaki denies having contact with the men in Virginia.

August 2001: According to NY Times, Awlaki tells neighbor Lincoln Higgie, “I don’t think you’ll be seeing me. I won’t be coming back to San Diego again. Later on you’ll find out why.”

On that same occasion, he said that "something big" was going to happen, and that he had to be out of the country -- in fact, he had plans to go to Kuwait. (Why Kuwait? He had family in Yemen.)

Before Sept. 11, 2001: Awlaki returns briefly to San Diego (9/11 Commission MFR) “Reportedly acted suspiciously by declining help with boxes he was transporting in a rental car (driven only 37 miles) and by refusing to provide any local address to the rental agent.”

September 2001: German authorities find Awlaki’s phone number in the Hamburg home of Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who was a leading figure in the 9/11 plot.

Given his clear connections to the San Diego team members, you would presume that Al-Awlaki would have scooted out of the country -- as he had announced he would do. But no. Naturally, he was interviewed by the FBI after the terror attack. And with unnatural ease, he sailed right through their questioning -- even though he clearly seems to have lied about his relationship with the hijackers, since his story contradicted the evidence of his cell phone records.

(Wasn't Martha Stewart forced to do jail time for lying to investigators about a much less important matter?)

Yet even though they let the guy go more than once, the FBI would later tell foreign governments that they want to question al-Awlaki!

There was another prostitute bust in 2002. Despite which...

Feb. 5, 2002: Awlaki delivers lecture to senior Defense officials at the Pentagon on Islam and Middle Eastern politics and popular culture.

Go here for a DoD memo about that luncheon. Attendees had a choice of seafood, beef or chicken.

His name came up in the abortive Operation Green Quest investigation. He was placed on the terrorist watch list. Shortly after that, a judge issued a warrant for his arrest on a charge of passport fraud.

In October of 2002, the warrant was rescinded and the criminal case was dropped. He was allowed to fly into the U.S on October 10, 2002. Customs detained him until the FBI told Customs that al-Awlaki was taken off the watch list just the day before.

History Commons draws the following info from a 2004 U.S. News and World Report story:

Al-Awlaki then leaves the US again. The FBI will later admit they were “very interested” in al-Awlaki and yet failed to stop him from leaving the country. One FBI source says, “We don’t know how he got out.”

The pattern is unmistakable: The FBI told everyone that they were "very interested" in the man -- but only when he was out of the country. If they were so desperate to talk to him again, why didn't they pay him a visit when Customs had detained him at the airport?

Dec. 18, 2003: British MP Louise Ellman tells House of Commons calls Muslim Association of Britain is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood; says Awlaki “is reportedly wanted for questioning by the FBI in connection with the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.”

Yeah. Funny thing about that, Louise: The FBI did question him twice, both before and after he 9/11 attacks. They let him go, despite clear evidence of his involvement. And they let him fly in and out of the country, even though lots of innocent people (lefties, mostly) were put on the "no fly" list during this same period.

In 2006, he was in Yemen. The authorities there arrested him on kidnapping charges. (Al Qaeda in Yemen was going to kidnap a U.S. official.) The U.S. requested the Yemenis to hold him.

In October of 2006, an Al Qaeda gunrunning ring in Yemen was raided by the authorities. Al-Awlaki was part of this ring, using the name Abu Atiq. This fascinating story in The Australian almost comes right out and admits that "Abu" was an "inside man" working for either Yemeni or western intelligence:

...the key to the raids appears to be a Yemeni known as Abu Atiq, who was arrested about six weeks before the October 17 swoop. Abu Atiq was allegedly an associate of two of the September 11 hijackers and a protege of the virulently anti-Western Salafi cleric and head of Islamic studies at al-Islam, Abdul al-Majid al-Zindani, who the US wants arrested on terror charges. But Atiq's biggest claim to notoriety is his alleged role in a foiled al-Qa'ida plot to bomb oil and gas facilities in Yemen.

The strong implication here is that Al-Awlaki was scooped up on kidnapping charges, cooperated with the authorities, and blew the whistle on the gunrunners. The Australian notes that those who run afoul of Yemeni authorities usually are tossed into rough detention at the Central Security Prison in Sanaa, where torture is often used on suspects.

Al-Awlaki was confined for 18 months, kept away from the other prisoners. We don't know if he was tortured, but he probably was not -- if he had been, he would have advertised the fact during his propaganda broadcasts.

During his imprisonment, the FBI questioned him about his contacts with the 9/11 hijackers. This, despite the fact that they had already questioned him about that in 2002 and decided that he was unworthy of further attention.

Even though many smaller fish disappear into Yemen's prisons, never to be seen again, al-Awlaki was let go. He then began his career as a jihadist rabble-rouser, media figure and Facebook personality.

By the way: The drone strike represents only his most recent death. In December of 2009, the Yemenis reported that they had killed him in an airstrike.

I don't claim to have a proper "Theory of al-Awlaki." But there is definitely something about this guy that we have not yet been told.

Who videotaped Flight 253?

The video below offers an important insight into the ongoing mystery of flight 253, the so-called Christmas bomber or "crotch bomber."

The video is some years old -- I'm not sure how old. It concerns 9/11, always a touchy subject in these here parts. The introductory comments are from John Judge, who came under sharp attack from the CD nuts because he didn't go along with their bombs-in-the-buildings crap. I'm not sure that I agree with what Judge has to say here about the Pentagon strike.

But 9/11 is not -- repeat: NOT -- the topic I want to address right now. And if you insist on jumping onto that topic anyways, stand warned: I am in a mood to moderate comments ruthlessly.

Right now, our topic is the more recent Christmas terror attempt -- the so-called "crotch-bomber case. If you watch this video all the way through, you will see the relevance:



Basically, the bulk of this presentation comes from a stewardess who often worked on that flight, and who lost a friend when the jet crashed into the Pentagon.

I'll transcribe the part which is germane to our present discussion:

On August 25 [2001] -- I'm constantly working this route, seven times a month -- I had one of the alleged hijackers on my plane, that flew the second trade tower plane, into the second trade tower. The one that kind of sliced it through. Flight 173 United Airlines. His name is Al-Shehhi. If you ever see a picture of all the hijackers, he's the one with the little round glasses.

I had him on my flight on August 25. He videotaped us almost the entire time. Which wasn't unusual, back then. And he asked us to go to the cockpit three times. And he told us he was a pilot for Saudi Arabian airlines. He was a nice, friendly guy. I wasn't suspicious of anything. Normal behavior back then.

The connection to the more recent incident should be obvious. As I wrote:

A mystery man kept his camera going throughout the entire flight, as though expecting an incident to occur. We have at least two perfectly congruent and credible eyewitness descriptions of this "mystery movie-maker," who has made no attempt to capitalize on his remarkable footage.

There may be an innocent explanation for that. But right now, the situation seems more than a little suspicious. A mystery videographer who films the whole flight suggests advanced knowledge of a "terror" scheme which was intended to fail.

The Al-Shehhi videography exercise, conducted a couple of weeks before 9/11, makes perfect sense: Hijackers would want to know in advance just what to expect during the flight. They were, in essence, casing the joint.

It therefore seems logical to presume that the guy videotaping on Christmas was similarly "casing the joint."

Okay. So why was there a fire in Farouk's crotch? Why that flight, as opposed to a later flight? It doesn't make sense for a jihadi to try to pull off an act of terror on the same flight that carries a compatriot who is doing surveillance for some future act of terror.

Now let's check in with Kurt Haskell, one of the witnesses who saw Farouk (the abortive bomber) meet with a "well-dressed man" in the Schipol airport. He has written a long piece from which I draw the following excerptions, relevant to the above:

The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:

1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:

1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.

The rest of Haskell's long piece is of great interest, but I don't have the time to talk about all of it. I would, however, like to draw your attention to this excellent piece from January 22 by our old friend AntiFascist. He develops an idea that few others have discussed:

CongressDaily reported on January 22 that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."

Leiter told the Committee: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."

CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" confirmed that Leiter's statement reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."

And then there's this, which confirms the idea:

Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."

So. Can we put all of this together into a single, reasonably persuasive "Theory of Farouk"?

Not yet. But I feel that we are close to that point.

If the videographer was a terrorist "casing" the flight, why didn't the government interview him or even talk about him?

Since it makes sense that a terrorist would videotape a flight before the actual attack, why didn't the "mystery videographer" of Christmas set off all sorts of alarms? Why was he allowed to tape? The stewardess in the video indicates that such taping, once common, is now no longer allowed -- or at least, it raises suspicions.

(If you're a CD crank, and if you are just dying right now for the chance to give me the familiar "Cannon doesn't understand the laws of physics" rap, head on over to Rigorous Intuition. Have yourself a ball.)

Armed rebellion, airliner bombs and double agents

They say they want a revolution. Everyone must admit that this really is going too far: A GOP newsletter published out of Virginia calls for armed revolution if Obama is re-elected. 

The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware  ~ that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November ~ This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.

Previously, I've argued that Romney would benefit politically if he issued a forceful denunciation of this evil rhetoric. If he devoted a major speech to this topic, the mainstream media would applaud his statesmanship, while the nutball media would probably shut up like a chastened child.

But never mind tactical concerns. If Romney cares about decency at all, he must castigate the madmen in his party.

About the airline bomber: Yes, I know that the guy was a double agent. As soon as I can formulate a narrative that makes sense, I'll let you know. Right now, there are too many questions.

We don't even know who was running this guy. Most sources point to Saudi intelligence, but Fox News said (before the double agent thing was revealed) that CIA agents scooped up Mr. DoubleAgent before he got on board the plane.

More importantly: If, as claimed, this same infiltrator arranged a drone airstrike against Fahd al Quso (a senior Al Qaeda operative in Yemen), why didn't the agent ask for a similar strike against the super-clever bomb-maker who developed those new and improved explosive underpants?

At this time, the most interesting discussion can be found -- where else? --  over on emptywheel's site.

News stories have not asked about the obvious parallels to the first underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who set himself on fire in mid-flight in December of 2009. I wrote about him at length, here and here and here. There were plenty of indications that he, too, was an agent of some sort. By way of review, here are seven of those indicators:

1. Someone videotaped the entire flight. The guy with the camcorder seemed to know what was going to happen -- although, obviously, he did not expect to be blown to smithereens. If Mr. Camcorder was uninvolved with Farouk, we would have seen the video.

2. A well-dressed accomplice helped Farouk get onto the flight.

3. Farouk's name did not appear on the "no fly" list, even though his own father (a wealthy Nigerian official) warned the American embassy about his son.

4. No-one has explained his source of money.

5. Although Farouk reportedly had been estranged from his father for quite some time, he was spotted at his Dad's retirement party shortly before the infamous flight.

6. The bomb did not have a required detonator.

7. The CIA stopped the State Department from revoking Farouk's visa.

There are, of course, two massive problems with any Farouk-the-spook theory: He really did set his crotch on fire, and he pleaded guilty.

I suppose the guilty plea could be a ruse. Perhaps he's not really serving a life sentence; perhaps, with his mission accomplished, he has assumed another identity. But that scenario seems rather too "Hollywood" for me.

Well, as long as we're playing with Hollywoodish scenarios: Do you think Criss Angel could come up with a way for someone to light his underwear on fire painlessly? (And is there any way to ask him that question without sounding like a total perv?)

Incidentally, Kurt Haskell -- who was on the 2009 flight and who, along with his wife Lori, provided details about the many oddities surrounding that case -- is running for Congress. You should read the more recent entries on the Haskells' blog. Lori has some rather revealing things to say about the treatment they received in court when Farouk was sentenced.

So much for the old crotch-bomber. As for crotch-bomber 2.0...

Jeez, I dunno. Got any theories? At this point, I'd even give a hearing to wacky speculation. Well, semi-wacky. While you ponder, consider this:

...of 22 major plans for terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, fully 14 were developed in sting operations organised by US intelligence, mostly being carried out by people just as incompetent as Abdulmutallab, even more isolated, and utterly removed from posing any genuine danger to civilians.

One last note: It was just announced that a Russian jet went missing near Jakarta, while two Southwest airline flights were cancelled due to bomb scares. Ominous. A pattern...?

Finally, a solution to the Great Crotch-Bomber Mystery

Walter Pincus delivers the other side of the story. He tells us why the Obama administration made such an enormous effort to spy on AP in order to track a leaker.

Previously, it had been established the AP had gotten wind of a plot to bomb an airliner on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death. At the government's request, the news organization kept mum about the story until given the go-ahead to publish.

Now we have the key details. Turns out that this bomb plot was actually a sting operation, of sorts. The target was AQAP -- Al Qaida on the Arab Peninsula, the Yemeni terror group:

One goal was to get AQAP’s operational head, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso. That happened one day before the AP story appeared.

A second goal was to find and possibly kill AQAP bombmaker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, whose first underwear device almost killed Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, Saudi Arabia’s anti-terrorism chief. Soon after, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab used such a device in a failed Christmas Day bombing attempt as his Northwest Airlines flight was landing in Detroit.

Hitting targets in the United States is one of AQAP’s goals. In association with Saudi intelligence, the CIA inserted a Saudi who convinced AQAP that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. Eventually he was outfitted with Asiri’s newest device, which he was to use on a U.S. aircraft. After the device was delivered to U.S. officials, someone or several people leaked the information to the AP.

White House press secretary Jim Carney had announced that there were no Al Qaida plots to observe the anniversary. AP considered this statement a lie, although technically, there was truth in it.

 This was a CIA ruse, not a terrorist-initiated plot.

Marcy Wheeler derides the suggestion that the Saudi double agent could have returned to AQAP and resumed his spying chores. The key words in Pincus' story: "After the device was delivered to U.S. officials..." If the bomb plot was foiled -- if the bomb was safely in US hands -- then how (Marcy asks) could the Saudi spook get back into Al Qaida's good graces?

As I pondered that poser, mulling over all the potential scenarios, a lightbulb flashed overhead.

Pincus, are you thinking what I'm thinking...?

Probably not. And even if the idea that just now occurred to me has also occurred to him, no reporter in his august position would allow himself voice such a novel theory in public. Of course, we bloggers are snarling dogs who snap all tethers. Giving voice to novel theories is what we do. My little brainstorm can be summed up in a single sentence:

What if "crotch-bomber" Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was also a double agent?

What if his arrest, trial and conviction were all ruses? What if he now has a new life under a new name?

That scenario explains many of the lingering oddities that have always surrounded the underwear bombing incident of Christmas, 2009. We've discussed these mysteries in a series of previous posts: See here and here and here.

Think back, my friends, to the final days of 2009 and the early days of 2010. Think back to the story that had everyone in the world filled with angst and speculation. Suddenly, we can see everything about that incident in a brand new light...

1. Why did a mystery videographer document the entire flight? Why didn't this cameraman show his (no doubt quite dramatic) footage to the media? Why didn't the FBI try to track him down? It makes no sense to suggest that the videographer was a fellow terrorist, because if the explosion had gone off as planned, the footage would have been destroyed along with the aircraft.

Maybe...maybe the videographer worked for the CIA or a friendly agency. Maybe Captain Video knew that the bomb would never go off.

2. Who was the well-dressed accomplice who helped Mutallab board the flight? Reliable witnesses Kurt and Lori Haskell said that the accomplice helped the crotch-bomber board the flight without a passport.

Maybe...maybe the Well-Dressed Man was one of Mutallab's handlers.

3. Why the multiple stories about passports? As noted above, Mutallab needed help to board the flight because he did not have a passport; reliable witnesses are very clear on this point. But when writers commented on that oddity, a passport suddenly showed up. We never got a clear explanation as to how a man could both have and not have a passport.

Maybe...maybe that passport was a last-minute part of Mutallab's "legend."

4. Why did the Nigerians help Mutallab move in and out of that country? If I recall correctly, this aspect of the story was reported only in African newspapers.

Maybe...maybe the CIA recruited the help of the Nigerian authorities.

5. How did Mutallab escape the "no fly" list? His father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had warned the American embassy that his son had turned into a radical extremist capable of violence. Fox News was told that the CIA had tracked Mutallab for months beforehand. The UK had barred the young extremist from entering the country.

Maybe...maybe the father knew that his son was an Al Qaida infiltrator. Maybe the embassy warning was designed to establish cover. And maybe the no-fly list was massaged to allow a double-agent to board.

6. Why didn't the PETN crotch bomb go off after it was set on fire? I never could understand why American officials took such a shoulder-shrugging "no worries" attitude toward the actual mechanism allegedly placed inside that young man's goody bag. As you may recall, a parade of experts assured us that such a device was always hopeless and harmless: "PETN? Bah. Nothing to worry about. I eat PETN for breakfast. Hell, I've been known to slather it on toast..."

Maybe...maybe there was no bomb. Maybe no PETN was ever aboard that aircraft. Maybe this whole exercise in theater was designed to leave AQAP with the impression that Mutallab had honestly tried, and failed, to carry out a suicide mission.

7. Why did Mutallab have a beatific, tranced-out look on his face after lighting his crotch on fire? You'd think that even the most fervent jihadi would have some sort of reaction. No matter how zealous a young fanatic might be, fire and testicles simply don't mix.

Maybe...maybe the whole thing was a magic trick, a bit of theater. How difficult would it be to rig up fire-resistant underwear, covered with flammable material?

8. How did Mutallab get the money for his travels? Although his father is well-off, we have been told that he and dad did not always get along. The father has multiple wives, and young Farouk, as the family called him, was born to one of the less-favored wives. More importantly, Dad had ratted out his own son to the Americans months earlier.

Maybe...maybe we should always remember that a mysterious source of funding is the first indicator of spookiness.

9. Why did witnesses placed Mutallab at his father's retirement party in Lagos just a few days before the flight? The father told journalists that he hadn't seen his son for months.

Maybe...maybe father and son had one last get-together before young Mutallab went off on his assignment. Maybe they both knew that the young man would then have a new life under a new identity.

If Mutallab was a penetration agent, he no doubt relayed tons of useful information about a shadowy group hiding in the lawless regions of Yemen. Now that the second undie-bomber has been revealed as an agent, whoever is now running AQAP (presuming that the organization still exists) must be asking the same questions I have asked about Mutallab.

Are you about to tell me that my theory is too far-fetched, too James Bond-y to have any credibility? Re-read what Walter Pincus has to say about the Saudi who got into the good graces of AQAP. That scenario also reads like something out of a spy novel.

Added note: I sent Marcy Wheeler a message directing her attention to this post. My final words: "This is your cue to make me look like an idiot by telling me where my theory goes wrong."

Rising to that challenge, she reminded me that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab appealed his conviction. Well. That tidbit certainly calls my theory into question, although perhaps a kind reader can effect a rescue. Oddly enough, Farouk asked none other than Kurt Haskell to function as his witness.

He said he and his wife were on the flight returning from an African safari. While sitting at the airport, he said he saw Abdulmutallab being escorted through security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect English.

The airline gate worker initially refused to let Abdulmutallab to board until the man in the tan suit intervened.

He said passengers were kept on the plane after it landed in Detroit without any concern about the explosives on the plane. He said passengers were taken into the terminal without anyone checking their bags or for possible accomplices.

It soon became obvious that the FBI wasn’t concerned about anything he had to say, including the man in the tan suit.

He said Abdulmutallab was allowed to board the plane without a passport and going through security. He said he’s disappointed that the U.S. government allowed Abdulmutallab to get onto the plane.

“Regardless of how media and government try to shape this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. agent... to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies. It really saddens me that the government won’t admit its role in the event. Because of this case, I will never trust anything the government says, ever.”

Then, Haskell turned to Abdulmutallab.

“Umar, you are not a Muslim martyr. You are merely a government patsy.”

Intentionally given a defective bomb? Okay. I guess that's possible. But how? And who?

This April, he was transferred (for unknown reasons) to the Supermax facility in Colorado -- the most secure facility in the country.

By the way: Most of the earlier news stories used the spelling "Abdul Mutallab," or just "Mutallab," which I have retained. The more recent stories invariably spell the name "Abdulmutallab." Arabic names are notoriously difficult to render in English. Also, although Haskell called him "Umar," I distinctly recall a news story in an African periodical which said that the family always referred to him as "Farouk."

If Awlaki was ours, why'd we kill him?

I always feel a bit sad when my paranoid musings receive mainstream confirmation. A tabu idea has charm only as long as it remains tabu. If the idea no longer seems off-the-wall, where's the fun?

I'm sure you recall Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Islamic cleric assassinated by this administration due to his links to both the 9/11 hijackers and would-be "crotch bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. (His teenaged son was also "droned to death.") In the past, this humble blog has listed the many reasons for suspecting that Awlaki functioned as an agent of our intelligence apparat. (See, for example, here.)

Last October, no less a source than Politico gave voice to that very notion. Suddenly, an "unthinkable" theory became thinkable.

The Politico story focused on a biologist named Ali Al-Timimi. After he was cleared of involvement with the anthrax attacks, the government convicted him on a separate beef -- "inciting terrorism." Timimi says that he was screwed over by none other than Anwar al-Awlaki, previously known as the cleric to the World Trade Center terrorists. (Bizarrely, he was also the guest of honor at a post-9/11 Pentagon luncheon).

In October of 2002, Anwar visited Timimi and talked to him about various illegal acts. Timimi says that Awlaki was wired -- a claim I cannot confirm, although I personally believe it to be true.

One thing is certain: After making sure that Timimi's life was ruined, Awlaki skipped off with a grin, leaving the country in a no-muss, no-fuss fashion. Officials at JFK airport just waved the guy through -- and never mind that pesky arrest warrant for passport fraud that had been hanging over his head for a while.

Later, after Awlaki's 2011 death-by-droning, a lawyer for Timimi asked for documentation regarding Awlaki's possible work for Uncle. The lawyer -- and please don't snigger when I tell you that his name is Ed MacMahon -- was told that Timimi has "no right" to that information.

Not exactly a ringing denial of the charge, eh wot?

In 2012, Fox News published a similar piece about Republican Congressman Frank Wolf's frustrating attempts to find out more about Awlaki's true relationship with the FBI. 

The chronology tells you all you really need to know: Awlaki entered the country October 10, 2002, played his role in the Timimi sting, then bounced away again. At one time, the Bureau claimed that the arrest warrant had expired, but observers now agree that it was still in effect. One may thus reasonably suspect that the guy was allowed to go free because he helped the feds in the Timimi matter.

(This is why I keep telling you people to study the JFK assassination. If you understand how Lee Oswald ratfucked the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, you can more easily see how Anwar Awlaki ratfucked Timimi and the Exploding Crotch Dude and a host of others.)

A few further words about the "passport fraud" charge may be in order. As you probably know, Awalki was born in the U.S. to a Yemeni father. Later, he (the younger Awlaki) attended George Washington University, which has a fairly close relationship with spook-world. During his school days, he claimed to have been born in Yemen, thereby qualifying for $20,000 in scholarships reserved for foreign students.

That would have given the feds an early hold over the guy. (Well, that plus the prostitution arrests. Our boy Anwar had his weaknesses.)

Over the course of the last year, we've received further indications that Anwar the Dronable was an American agent or asset. Somewhat disturbingly, Fox News -- Fox! -- has done terrific work on this story. The following was published last July:

Outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller was more deeply involved in the post-9/11 handling of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki -- the first American targeted for death by the CIA -- than previously known, according to newly released documents reviewed exclusively by Fox News.

The documents, released after Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued the FBI, show a memo from Mueller to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on Oct. 3, 2002. It is marked “Secret” and titled “Anwar Aulaqi: IT-UBL/AL-QAEDA.”

While the substance of the memo is redacted in full, with the FBI citing classified material, the memo is one of at least three FBI reports -- whose primary subject is the cleric -- in the nine days leading up to Awlaki’s sudden return to the U.S. in October 2002.

The documents suggest the FBI was well aware of Awlaki’s movements, raising questions about why more wasn’t done to detain him.

As part of its ongoing investigation into the cleric, Fox News previously reported that after arriving at JFK airport from Yemen via Saudi Arabia and being detained by customs officers on Oct. 10, 2002, the cleric was allowed into the U.S. under the orders of FBI Agent Wade Ammerman from the bureau’s Washington office -- despite an active warrant for Awlaki’s arrest. The cleric later appeared with a government witness at the home of Ali al-Timimi, who was the target of Ammerman’s counterterrorism investigation. Al-Timimi, who was convicted on non-terrorism charges in 2005, is appealing the conviction which includes a life sentence.

Let that sink in. An FBI agent in DC intervened in a passport fraud case in New York, in order to make sure that an obviously guilty man was allowed to enter the country. How often does that happen?

The story becomes clearer. Uncle had hold of Timimi but couldn't make the anthrax charge stick. Nevertheless, the feds -- for whatever reason -- were determined to put the guy behind bars. So they brought Awlaki, Anwar Awlaki, into the country for a special "get Timimi" mission. They greased his way in and, once his mission was accomplished, they greased his way out.

In August, Robert Mueller would not deny that Awlaki was an asset:

"I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset -- that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so," Mueller said.

Translation: "Have you considered asking the lads at Langley?" Of course, the FBI had tracked Awlaki closely before his October 10, 2002 return visit. So I'm not sure who Mueller thinks he's kidding.

Timimi has a new lawyer -- Jonathan Turley.

The defense lawyer said that recently-released FBI files suggest that Al-Awlaki may have been acting as an "asset" for some government agency when he returned to the U.S. from abroad just prior to his meeting with Al-Timimi.

But...wait a minute...

If Awalki did that kind of thing for the U.S. -- then who was he working for when he got in contact with the 9/11 hijackers? And the Fort Hood shooter? And the crotch bomber?

If he really was an American asset, why did Obama kill the guy (and his son)?

Actually, there is serious question as to whether we really did kill Awlaki. The Yemeni government refused to confirm his death.

Perhaps the whole thing was staged. Perhaps Anwar has a new identity. Perhaps he's working behind the counter at your local Mickey D.

If so, then our current national argument over the droning of an American citizen takes on a whole new color. (For the latest on that argument, see Marcy Wheeler's piece on Senator Ron Wyden's justifications for the death-from-above attack.)

Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer (remember him?) insists that Awlaki was a "triple agent." If I understand aright, Shaffer believes that Awlaki was working for Them by pretending to work for Us even though he was really working for Them all along. In this scenario, we may conclude that Obama sent out the drones after learning Awlaki's true allegiance.

But what was the point of this game? If Awlaki really was with Them in his heart of hearts, why did he screw over Timimi? Was he simply saving his own skin, or did he have a greater goal? What goal?

The most important questions of all: What did he tell American authorities about the 9/11 hijackers before the event? What role did he play in the Fort Hood affair and the ultra-strange tale of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab?

The TSA, the CIA and the hidden truth about the Christmas bomber

(Note: When originally published, this story was combined with the one below. They work better separately.)

Many opinion pieces have linked the TSA outrages to last year's "Christmas bomber" incident, which remains a very mysterious affair. This timeline is of use:

* In 2008, former U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff authored a 38 page report warning of terrorists exploiting our security deficiencies – including air travel.

* On Christmas Day 2009, just before the “attempted bombing incident” on board flight 253, there were a total of 40 body scanners in use in 19 airports in the U.S.

* On Christmas Day 2009, numerous witnesses watched while Abdulmutallab, the supposed 'terrorist' was escorted TO the plane by several men in suits.

* After the 'bombing attempt' Chertoff made a flurry of media appearances suggesting that the “attempted bombing incident” could have been avoided if all airports were using full body scanners.

* The Washington Post printed an article on January 1, 2010, calling Chertoff out for using his government credentials to promote a product that benefits his clients. It was revealed that Rapiscan Systems, the manufacturer of the naked body scanner Chertoff was recommending, was a client of Chertoff's security consulting agency.

* Rapiscan has since received over $250 million in scanner orders.

Law professor Ann Althouse quotes this timeline, although she assures us that no tin foil chapeau covers her lovely blonde locks:

Abdulmutallab, the supposed 'terrorist'... Oh, lord. That's too conspiracy-theory for me.

But not for me. Fools go where angels and law professors fear to tread.

Yes, I have a theory, or at least the rough notes of one. Note, though, that this thesis comes wrapped in this cautionary note: I am not above offering a moderate amount of speculation, as long as it has been clearly marked as such. Consider yourself warned.

The key point is this: The current TSA scandal supplies a possible explanation for the many mysteries surrounding the Abdulmutallab affair. The conspiracy, if conspiracy there was, now has a motive -- money.

Althouse, drawing from research done by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, notes that the Department of Homeland Security promised to spend a billion bucks on airport security in the wake of the abortive Christmas attack. Before that episode, both the right and the left had mounted campaigns against full-body image scanners. Opposition remained strong even after the incident.

So the “groping” technique was developed as a way to punish people into using the scanners...

Keep this in mind as you re-read our earlier research into the so-called "crotch bomber." (Here, here and here.) After reviewing that material, the obvious answer finally hit me: Would-be Jihadist Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is a Nigerian version of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Many students of the JFK assassination believe that Oswald went to the USSR as part of a fake defector program. Former military intelligence analyst John Newman has demonstrated this point with near-mathematical precision.

Of course, any ersatz defector has to make the ruse seem credible by creating an elaborate paper trail designed to give the impression of a genuine ideological conversion. In the old wartime drama Across the Pacific, Humphrey Bogart does something similar. It's called "creating a legend," and its one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Wikipedia offers what purports to be a very full accounting of Farouk's conversion to Al Qaeda-style fanaticism. (His family calls him "Farouk," and so will I. It's easier to spell.) To me, much of this evidence looks like a classic "legend."

For example: Even after this young man had joined Al Qaeda and took part in terrorist training, intelligence officials had a file on him containing "no derogatory information." Oh really? Then why compile a file at all? How likely is it that the scion of one of Africa's wealthiest families could turn into a violent jihadist without the news coming to the attention of American or British intelligence? Farouk made no secret of his sympathies.

We know that Al Qaeda -- indeed, the entire jihadist movement -- has long been penetrated at all levels. For example: Even before 9/11, a Moroccan agent named Hassan Dabou (eventually debriefed by the CIA) infiltrated Al Qaeda and became close to Osama Bin Laden. Dabou could not have accomplished that task unless he had constructed a "legend" as detailed and convincing as Farouk's.

Here are some indicators that Farouk "Lee Harvey" Abdulmutallab was playing the same perilous game that Hassan Dabou played:

1. The party animal. The "email trail" (as outlined by Wikipedia) tells of a dramatic break between Farouk and his wealthy Nigerian father.

Among the other text messages he sent to his father were: "I've found a new religion, the real Islam"; "You should just forget about me, I'm never coming back"; "Please forgive me. I will no longer be in touch with you"; and "Forgive me for any wrongdoing, I am no longer your child."

However, African news sources revealed that Farouk attended his father's retirement party, which occurred just one week before the Christmas incident.

A family source said Farouk was “generally around” during the celebrations marking his father's retirement from First Bank, but would not elaborate any further as Dr. Umaru Muttallab has ordered all members of the family to cease further cooperation with the media.

Some will dismiss this story out of hand, simply because the source is African. I take the account seriously.

2. Dad's Yemen connection. The father is a neoliberal banker who worked on an effort to transform Yemen into yet another Milton Friedmanesque "paradise." In other words, he worked closely with the very government that his son's cronies allegedly sought to destroy. The "allegedly" caveat stems from the fact that many Yemenis think that the Al Qaeda threat is a myth created by a repressive regime.

3. How did Farouk board the flight in Amsterdam? According to all initial reports, Farouk got on the plane without a passport, impersonating a refugee from Sudan.

Mysteriously, a passport later turned up. Yet the original "Sudanese refugee" tale is backed by credible eyewitness testimony, offered by Kurt and Lori Haskell:

While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, 'He's from Sudan and we do this all the time.'”

Who was this enigmatic accomplice?

Obviously, the smartly-dressed helper -- I am persuaded of his existence -- must have identified himself as a government official. If he carried no such identification, then his "we do this all the time" comment would have impressed no-one.

After first denying the eyewitness testimony, authorities later decided that the accomplice was simply there to make sure that Farouk did not get cold feet. But the "we do this all the time" comment undermines that explanation.

4. The "oops" factor. Why did Al Qaeda in Yemen -- or someone claiming to represent that group -- offer a bogus assertion of responsibility for the Christmas terror attempt? The official statement held that the attack was in response to a bombing raid on an Al Qaeda camp. Problem: Farouk bought his plane ticket before the raid.

5. The mystery video. Multiple witnesses confirm that someone videotaped the entire flight -- and began taping well before Farouk made his big play.

As we have seen in this post, one of the 9/11 hijackers videotaped the flight a couple of weeks before the fateful day. He was, we might say, casing the joint.

Obviously, the "crotch bomber" videographer wasn't doing that. He had some other purpose. We can fairly surmise the following:

A. Someone knew that a terror attempt was imminent.
B. Someone wanted a record.
C. Someone knew ahead of time that the terror attempt would not destroy the aircraft.

We may also fairly speculate that the videographer worked for a Western intelligence service. How do we know this? Because the news media tried very hard not to talk about him.

No journalist wants to be accused of compromising an ongoing intelligence operation.

6. No boom. Kurt Haskell has outlined some excellent reasons to believe that the bomb was never intended to explode. The best evidence:

The bomb required a detonator to explode...

...a detonator which this bomb lacked.

7. Unlikely dialogue. One aspect of Farouk's email trail strikes me as particularly unconvincing. In 2005 (before his alleged radicalization) he wrote:

I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the muslims will win insha Allah and rule the whole world, and establish the greatest empire once again!!!

In 2009, he told a fellow student that he wanted to impose sharia law on the entire globe.

It all seems a little too pat. Although America's anti-Islamic fanatics often pretend that Muslims intend to conquer "the whole world," I've never before encountered an actual jihadist who baldly states this insane goal. "Death to Israel," yes. "Down with America," yes. But "Sharia in North Dakota"...?

Looks to me as though Farouk spent a lot of time mouthing the sort of dialogue that a jihadist would say only in a melodrama written by an evangelical Christian in Alabama.

8. Chertoff's spook house. Although many on both the right and the left now point fingers at Michael Chertoff, few have dared to address the intelligence community's involvement. The media's silence on this point is very telling. Take a closer look at The Chertoff Group:

Co-founded by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Chad Sweet, former Director of Operations for the CIA

Leadership team includes General Michael V. Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA, as well as Charles E. Allen, a former Assistant Director at the CIA and architect of DHS intelligence structure

Advocates for the usage of body-scanners for airport security, while maintaining clients which include manufacturers of body-scanning systems

The Chertoff Group’s leadership team is mostly comprised of former high-level employees of the DHS, CIA, NSA, and FEMA.

Yow! This group is spookier than the Haunted Mansion.

The Chertoff groups stands to make a ton of money from the widespread installation of their wittily-named Rapiscan scanners. So there's your motive.

Summing it all up: The fingerprints of intelligence are all over this thing.

We have good reason to believe that the Amsterdam accomplice was CIA. The videographer must have been a spook -- otherwise, the media and the official investigators would have spent a lot of time talking about him. The videographer's presence also indicates that Farouk's handlers knew ahead of time that the plane would never blow up. The CIA has a heavy presence in Yemen. Farouk's presence in that country makes much more sense if we picture him as an infiltrator, not as a zealot. His wealthy and influential father is precisely the sort of person the CIA seeks to contact and recruit -- which means that he very likely came to the direct attention of Chertoff's partner, Chad Sweet.

The whole thing hangs together. In my view, the story has but one remaining loose end: What did they tell Farouk to compel him to light the match?

Terrorism and Pilate's question

Will the last REAL jihadi in Al Qaeda please turn out the lights?

We've learned that the great AP leak-finding effort concerned a Saudi pseudo-terrorist who infiltrated Al Qaeda in Yemen. This guy was supposed to wear an underwear bomb aboard a jet. Obviously, he did no such thing.

In the previous post, I argued that the first undie-bomber may also have been a fake.

A couple of days ago, Marcy Wheeler voiced her own suspicions about Fahd al-Quso, recently killed by a drone strike in Yemen. He allegedly masterminded undiebomber #2 (the infiltrator), and he also played a role in the first crotch-bomb effort. Al-Quso was a very odd duck. He got his start as a jihadi when he was assigned to videotape the attack on the USS Cole -- a simple enough gig, you'd think, yet he managed to screw it up by falling asleep on the job.

Funny thing: The US went out of its way not to mention Fahd until quite recently.

Whatever Quso’s role in UndieBomb 1.0, the implication of the timing is clear: he was central to the UndieBomb 2.0 plot. Indeed, it is almost certain that CIA asked AP to delay publishing their story to give time to kill Quso, who had just sent our mole off with another UndieBomb.

In other words, one plausible explanation for why DOJ did not confirm what other reports made clear is that it did not want to tip Quso off to what Abdulmutallab told them about him. That is, if they were already planning the op against him, they wouldn’t want him to know they knew how Abdulmutallab had found him 2.5 years earlier.

That is just one possibility, of course.

But if that’s the case — if DOJ obscured Quso’s role in the government’s most extensive accusations that Anwar al-Awlaki had an operational role in targeting the US — then are the claims about Awlaki true?

Marcy's thoughts aroused this interesting comment:

maybe undiebombs of all versions were CIA stings? and Fahd al-Quso was the CIA’s guy in the stings? and now that the stings were done...so is al-Quso?

In the past, I've argued that the drone killing of al-Awlaki himself was of questionable veracity, because the government of Yemen pointedly refused to verify the man's death. They never identified a body. A couple of cars sped away from the scene, and Awlaki (an American citizen) may have been in one of those vehicles.

In her most recent post, Marcy notes that -- contrary to Eric Holder's recent claim -- would-be crotch bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab may never have been in contact with Awlaki.

But even there, he doesn’t attribute Awlaki’s influence to conversations he had with Awlaki in Yemen — even Awlaki acknowledged to having contact with Abdulmutallab, though he maintained he did not order the attack. Rather, Abdulmutallab points to speeches Awlaki published, speeches which, according to other court documents, he listened to as early as 2005.

Awlaki went completely unmentioned in two earlier confessions made by Abdulmutallab.

I've argued -- and I'm not the only one -- that Awlaki himself was an infiltrator, and that his drone killing was staged. See here and here. I suspect that he may now be living under a new identity in a new country.

Why else would the U.S. later announce that his 16 year old son was also killed by a drone? There was no sensible reason to go after a mere boy.

Perhaps some drone attacks are not quite real. It's not as though any reporters are likely to go into the inhospitable wilds of Yemen to double-check whether these killings actually happened as described.

Let's review our top ten reasons for suspecting that Awlaki was something other than what we've been told:

1. He was born in New Mexico, even though he claimed to be a native-born Yemeni when he applied for an American Social Security card. (If you can figure that one out, please share with the rest of the class!)

2. He went to George Washington University, a school with strong CIA ties. (Any foreign national going to that school is a likely target for an Agency recruitment effort.)

3. Despite having undeniable ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, the Pentagon invited him to speak at a formal luncheon. This was after the attack on the World Trade Center.

4. He was allowed to fly in and out of the country with impunity. Whenever he was outside the country, the FBI would issue statements to this effect: "Gosh, we'd really like to interview the guy, but he's beyond our reach." Yet whenever he was within our borders, he was left alone.

5. His death has been announced more than once.

6. A Murdoch-owned newspaper in Australia once as much as admitted that Awlaki cooperated with Yemeni authorities in an effort to round up Al Qaeda members in Yemen.

7. In 1994, Awlaki set up secure communications for Bin Laden using military phone lines.

8. During Awlaki's time in this country, the authorities routinely turned a blind eye to his legal problems. He was twice busted for soliciting prostitutes, yet nothing came of either incident. The man had a guardian angel.

9. He was not officially tied to the 9/11 attacks until 2008, even though he had helped the hijackers rent an apartment.

10. For the most part, nobody censored or impeded his YouTube calls for Jihad.

I could go on, but those ten points will suffice for now.

One could point to other claimed Al Qaeda double agents. The most famous example would be that bizarre Green Beret and Islamic fanatic, Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed. For years, people have wondered whether he was a jihadi who infiltrated our military or one of "ours" who infiltrated the Bin Laden organization. To my eyes, the latter scenario seems much more likely -- especially if we keep in mind that he offered his services to the CIA as early as 1984.

The esteemed professor and former ambassador Peter Dale Scott has discussed this remarkable case:

Ali Mohamed. …. trained most of al Qaeda’s top leadership – including Bin Laden and Zawahiri – and most of al Qaeda’s top trainers. He gave some training to persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing…. From 1994 until his arrest in 1998, he lived as an American citizen in California, applying for jobs as an FBI translator.11

Patrick Fitzgerald knew Ali Mohamed well. In 1994 he had named him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the New York landmarks case, yet allowed him to remain free. This was because, as Fitzgerald knew, Ali Mohamed was an FBI informant, from at least 1993 and maybe 1989.12 Thus, from 1994 “until his arrest in 1998 [by which time the 9/11 plot was well under way], Mohamed shuttled between California, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia and at least a dozen other countries.”

As I say in our book, in 1993 Ali Mohamed had been detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada, when he inquired at an airport after an incoming al Qaeda terrorist who turned out to be carrying two forged Saudi passports. Mohamed immediately told the RCMP to make a phone call to the United States, and the call secured his release.15 We’ve since been told that it was Mohamed’s West coast FBI handler, John Zent, “who vouched for Ali and got him released.”16

This release enabled Ali to go on to Kenya, take pictures of the U.S. Embassy, and deliver them to bin Laden for the Embassy bombing plot.

If all these latest revelations about Ali Mohamed are true, then:

1) a key planner of the 9/11 plot, and trainer in hijacking, was simultaneously an informant for the FBI.

2) This operative trained the members for all of the chief Islamist attacks inside the United States – the first WTC bombing, the New York landmarks plot, and finally 9/11, as well as the attacks against Americans in Somalia and Kenya.

3) And yet for four years Mohamed was allowed to move in and out of the country as an unindicted conspirator. Then, unlike his trainees, he was allowed to plea-bargain. To this day he may still not have been sentenced for any crime.

Here's the most recent info that Wikipedia has on the guy:

Further news sources in 2001 seem to suggest that Ali Mohamed is providing information on al-Qaeda in an attempt to reduce his sentence,[10] and that his sentencing "has been postponed indefinitely.".[19] In 2006, Mohamed's wife, Linda Sanchez, was reported in 2006 as saying, "He's still not sentenced yet, and without him being sentenced I really can't say much. He can't talk to anybody. Nobody can get to him. They have Ali pretty secretive...it's like he just kinda vanished into thin air."

And that, my friends, is it. No further details.

I think you get the picture. Would you be even slightly surprised to learn that Ali Mohamed is now a free man operating under a new identity?

One might also mention the bizarre case of Adam Gadahn, the Jewish kid from Orange county who became a key Bin Laden aide. Allegedly, he still holds a senior position in Al Qaeda. Wikipedia describes him as

...an American who is a senior operative, cultural interpreter, spokesman[2] and media advisor[3] for the Islamist group Al-Qaeda. Since 2004, he appeared in a number of videos produced by Al-Qaeda as "Azzam the American" ('Azzām al-Amrīki, عزام الأمريكي, sometimes transcribed as Ezzam Al-Amerikee).

Notice that Obama hasn't droned this guy to death, even though Gadahn has been indicted for treason.

Gadahn was thought to have been captured in Pakistan in 2010. Later, we learned that the guy they captured was actually Abu Yahya Mujahdeen Al-Adam, yet another lily-white American boy turned Al Qaeda jihadist.

Even though Al-Adam is reputedly a Philadelphia native, and even though you'd think that our media might consider him a newsworthy fellow, information on the man remains hard to come by. This site made a brave attempt to dig up further info:

According to Dawn, Al-Adam is a "close friend" of Osama bin Laden, which seems rather doubtful to me, but not impossible. It depends on the age of the man in question. Here's a little idle speculation to fill your time as we await more specific and verifiable information.

There was a jihadist during the late 1990s named Adam Mohammed Noor, who was an associate of Wadih El-Hage, an American who was actually a close associate of Bin Laden. There was also an American "Adam" who was a close friend of Ali Mohamed, another American who kept close company with Bin Laden. It's not clear if these two Adams were the same person.

I'm starting to wonder: Did Osama Bin Laden have any non-American associates?

Holder has specified that, aside from Awlaki, drones have killed three other Americans. No names; no identification. Yes, I'm indulging in wild speculation here, but I gotta ask: Could these three guys be the "American contingent" (Gadahn, EL-Hage, Al Adam) surrounding Bin Laden? And is it not possible that "drone strikes" were actually covers for operations designed to exfiltrate American penetration agents?

A 2004 story in The Times revealed that an Al Qaeda cleric named Abu Qatada was actually a double agent working for MI5.

According to the BBC, Mossad concocted an entire Al Qaeda cell in Gaza. Completely fake.

Al Qaeda is starting to remind me of the American Communist Party in the 1950s. Back then, by some estimates, FBI infiltrators amounted to half the membership. Some wags have even suggested the dues paid by the Bureau's spies kept many CP chapters afloat. Similar claims have been made about Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and 1970s.

Say what you will about Pontius Pilate -- at least the old bastard asked the right question.

(Note: Please look at the Rules for Comments at the top of the left-hand column. I'll be strictly enforcing Rule #2.)

Ten strange things about the crotch-bomber story -- and number 10 is a doozy

(ADDED NOTE: I now see the big problem with this post -- it's a long piece and the original research comes at the end. That bit of original research is, I think, important stuff. So if you're pressed for time, scroll down to the words "The ICTS mystery." You'll see that phrase in boldface mid-way through point ten. Can't miss it.)

Let's start the New Year paranoid.

I've tried to avoid writing about the Nigerian wanna-be terrorist Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab (known to his family as Farouk), the 23 year-old Islamic lonelyheart whose abortive effort to blow up Northwest flight 253 on Christmas Day ended with an intact jet and a charred genital region. The lesson: If you sew PETN into your underwear, you may put a damper on your sex life. Not that the virginal Farouk had one.

Correspondents seem to expect me to come up with a radical new conspiracy theory to explain this incident. Alas, I don't have such a theory. The best I can offer is a summary of some of the unconventional claims which have popped up in various news and blog articles. If you are the kind of nitwit who presumes that mentioning an odd claim automatically equals acceptance and approval of such a claim, please dive head-first into a vat of fire ants.

Oddity 1: Did Farouk have a passport? The initial reports said that he did not. We heard that he had boarded the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight by impersonating a refugee from Sudan.

Later, we were told that he did have a passport: See here for a picture of the thing. But if he did have a passport, the following report becomes doubly inexplicable...

Oddity 2: Who was that well-dressed accomplice? Kurt and Lori Haskell, of Newport MI, were on the flight. At the boarding gate in Amsterdam, they saw Farouk arrive in the company of an as-yet unidentified man.

While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, 'He's from Sudan and we do this all the time.'”

Mutallab is Nigerian. Haskell believes the man may have been trying to garner sympathy for Mutallab's lack of documents by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee.

The ticket agent referred Mutallab and his companion to her manager down the hall, and Haskell didn't see Mutallab again until after he allegedly tried to detonate an explosive on the plane.

The "he-had-a-passport-all-along" reports did not come out until after the Haskell account hit the headlines. The sighting of an accomplice was thus effectively discredited. As CBS puts it:

But the Dutch counter-terrorism unit's investigation into Abdulmutallab's passport pokes holes in the theory that the alleged bomber had help evading security.

Note that CBS suddenly places us in the realm of "theory," as opposed to eyewitness testimony.

Note as well that the Washington Times (linked above) saw fit to mention the "impersonating-a-Sudanese" story without mentioning Haskell's "accomplice" story -- even though the Haskells, as far as I can see, were the original source for the "Sudanese" bit.

Or were they?

Oddity 3: Security videos. Kurt Haskell has asked the FBI about any security videos which would confirm his story, but the FBI has refused to answer. These days, it would be silly to believe that Farouk was not photographed at the airport.

Oddity 4: Were there Aftrican helpers? This story from an African news journal contains a noteworthy paragraph:

Upon arrival in Lagos, he changed that ticket and boarded a flight to Detroit via Amsterdam. Although Nigerian authorities claimed he "sneaked into Nigeria” on Christmas Eve to board the KLM flight to Amsterdam, Saharareporter sources said Farouk had been around Lagos before and after he went to Ghana, for some reason, to purchase the ticket that he later changed in Lagos. It would appear that Nigerian security officials are covering up privileged people that may have provided material support to Umar as he prepared to depart for the US, although it is conceivable they may have helped him without knowing his mission.

"Privileged people"? As Jerry Seinfeld used to say: "Who are these people?"

Incidentally, this same report also mentions that Farouk may have a sister in New York, that he was in Lagos for his father's retirement party (even though other reports say that he was estranged from his family), and that the formerly loquacious paterfamilias has now ordered all family members not to talk to the media.

Oddity 5: What does it take to get on the "no fly" list? Farouk's father, a very prominent banker in Nigeria, became concerned about his son's religious extremism and warned the American embassy. It seems odd for a father to rat out his son. And why did Farouk attend Dad's retirement party if Dad was ratting him out?

Farouk spent time in Yemen, where he seems to have associated with Al Qaeda militants. The CIA apparently knew that someone called "the Nigerian" was in contact with Al Qaeda in that country. In May, Farouk was blocked from re-entry into Britain.

Let's repeat that: He was blocked from re-entry into Britain.

Farouk appeared on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which is compiled by the good folks at the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. That database contains about half-a-million names.

Yet he was not placed on the "no fly" list.

So who has appeared on the list? ACLU attorney David Fathi, David Nelson of Ozzie and Harriet fame, Army colonel and Democratic political candidate Robert J. Johnson, congressman John Lewis (also a Democrat), Nelson Mandela and Ted Kennedy. In 2007, Princeton professor Walter F. Murphy could not board an airliner; he was told that he was placed on the list because he had given speeches critical of George W. Bush.

I guess Farouk just didn't have what it takes.

Oddity 6: Is there an Al Qaeda connection? The CIA says that Farouk was "the Nigerian" who communicated with Al Qaeda in Yemen. He has confessed to training with an Al Qaeda bomb-maker. Yet the Obama administration downplays all talk of a conspiracy. Moreover:

A Yemini-based Al Qaeda group has claimed responsibility for the attack, praising Abudulmutallab's attempt to blow up Flight 253 with about 3 ounces of the powerful explosive PETN stashed inside a pair of specially-made underwear, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian.

Responding to this report, the CIA dropped a rather interesting piece of information:

"We learned of him in November, when his father came to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and sought help in finding him. We did not have his name before then," said Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman.

The father's warning was taken with sufficient seriousness to be passed along to the CIA. And the CIA already knew of a person called "the Nigerian" who was palling around with Al Qaeda types in Yemen. So the question is: Did the the CIA connect Farouk to "the Nigerian" in November? The careful wording of Gimigliano's statement leaves the possibility wide open.

For what it is worth, Chris Wallace of Fox News says that the CIA had been tracking Farouk since August. Yet he didn't make the "no fly" list.

In an "official" statement, an Al Qaeda group claimed responsibility for the attack, which was carried out (supposedly) in retaliation for bombing raids on an Al Qaeda base in Yemen. As "Casual Observer" at FDL notes, those bombing raids took place on December 17 and 24. However:

Harold Demuren, the head of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, says Abdulmutallab’s ticket came from a KLM office in Accra, Ghana. Demuren said Monday that Abdulmutallab bought the $2,831 round-trip ticket from Lagos, Nigeria, to Detroit via Amsterdam on Dec. 16.

The chronology doesn't work.

Oddity 7: Instant mythology. In right-wingerland, a bogus story is making the rounds. According to this yarn, Farouk had two Al Qaeda helpers identified as Gitmo detainees released into the custody of Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation.

You read that right. They were sent to Saudi Arabia to attend a Jihad rehabilitation center where they were given paint and crayons. Isn’t that nice!

And the propaganda just never stops...

Oddity 8: Is there a tape? Previously, we mentioned the airport security videos which may or may not support the Haskell narrative. But we also have persuasive accounts of an amateur videotape taken within the aircraft itself during the incident. This report comes from passenger Patricia Keepman, who sat roughly 20 rows behind Farouk:

Her daughter said that ahead of them was a man who videotaped the entire flight, including the attempted detonation.

"He sat up and videotaped the entire thing, very calmly," said Patricia. "We do know that the FBI is looking for him intensely. Since then, we've heard nothing about it."

The entire flight? Who does that?

See also here:

In the midst of passengers trying to subdue Abdulmutallab and flight attendants working to put out the fire, Taylor says he looked behind him and saw a man filming the situation about two to five rows back.

"I looked behind me as the flight attendant ran through, and I looked and there was a guy with a camera," Taylor says.

Taylor says he notified the FBI of what he saw, in hopes of helping them to obtain footage of the foiled attack.

"There’s definitely footage from the time it was mission critical, to the time they hauled (Abdulmutallab) to the front," Taylor says. "I told them 100 percent there was a guy filming."

Taylor and Keepman place the videographer in the same location. Their accounts are congruent and convincing.

So why haven't we seen the tape? Why haven't we heard from the person who did the filming?

A Dutch film-maker named Jasper Schuringa was on the flight, but he did no filming. In fact, he helped to subdue the crotch-bomber.

Oddity 9: Travel arrangements. Farouk came from a well-off family, but he had been estranged from his father for some time -- or so says the father. So where did he get the cash for his travels? If his family had shut off the spigot, who provided his egg-and-cheese money? We can trace him going back and forth to the UK, Ghana, Yemen, Amsterdam and the U.S. He paid for the final journey in cash -- which should have been a tip-off.

Oddly enough, he bought a round-trip ticket -- an odd choice for a man who planned to blow up his flight.

The flight went from Lagos, Nigeria to Amsterdam. Why did he purchase the ticket in Ghana?

No-one has attempted to answer an obvious question: Where did he put on the PETN-laden underwear -- Ghana or Lagos or Amsterdam? If Amsterdam, who was his contact? (I very much doubt that PETN is as easy to obtain as pot is in Amsterdam.)

Oddity 10: The inevitable Israeli connection. Well, you knew that a link of some sort had to crop up sooner or later. We can't have a conspiracy theory round-up without mentioning the Israeli security services.

Our reader b, in a comment appended to a previous post, found grounds for suspicion in the fact that Farouk boarded the jet -- with help from a well-attired Indian, or so we're told -- at Schiphol airport.

Guess whose main European HQ is based there!

I typed that before I confirmed who runs security there. Not that that's a surprise.

The reference goes to the Israelis. A Google query on "Schiphol Mossad" will turn up a number of interesting stories.

Before proceeding, perhaps we should review an interesting blast from the past, which reveals a little-known aspect of the 2001 "shoe bomber" incident. The following example of a "controlled" security breach may be relevant to the more recent Christmas attack:

Six months prior to Reid's near shoe bombing of American Airlines flight 63 from Paris to Miami in December 2001, while memories of 9/11 were still fresh in everyone's mind, Reid attempted to board an El Al flight from Schiphol to Tel Aviv. Reid was taken aside by El Al security and identified as a terrorist suspect. Reid paid for a one-way ticket with cash and would not reveal what he planned to do in Israel. However, rather than turning Reid into Dutch security for further action, he was allowed to board the El Al flight by Israel's Shin Bet security so his movements during his five days in Israel could be monitored. Six months later, Reid attempted to ignite his shoe on the flight from Paris to Miami. Israel had not informed British, American, or any other security agency of the concerns about Reid. Reid's aunt, Claudette Lewis who raised Reid in south London, was quoted as saying she believed her nephew had been "brainwashed."

Reid later said El Al failed to detect that he had explosives in his shoes on the flight to Tel Aviv, an amazing revelation considering the Israeli airline's tight security.

You may also want to read about the strange history of El Al flight 1862, which crashed in 1992 after taking off from Schipol.

The ICTS mystery

When Reid went on his next fateful trip -- the one where he tried to light his shoe -- he passed through a check from an Israeli-owned security service called ICTS. ICTS employs a large number of Shin Bet veterans and has strong links to Mossad.

All of which brings us back to Farouk and the Christmas event.

Most of the conspiracy-oriented websites are now claiming that ICTS ran security at Schiphol -- for example, see here. ICTS has offered this strong denial:

Following the terrorist attack on DL/NW Flight 253 on 25 December 2009 , there have been incorrect reports linking ICTS Europe to the event.

We would like to make it clear that ICTS Europe Holdings B.V. is not connected in any way to the mentioned events. ICTS Europe does not provide any security services, nor any other services, whether directly or indirectly, at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and is not connected in any way to any of the companies that provide security services at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.

The ICTS disclaimer offers a startling contrast to this PR announcement from January 14:

ICTS International N.V. (Nasdaq: ICTS) announced today that it has formed a partnership arrangement with ICTS Europe Holdings BV, an unaffiliated party, to provide security services at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in The Netherlands. The partnership named ICTS Netherlands Airport Services has been awarded two contracts having an aggregate value of $15,000,000 Euros a year or annually. The contracts are for three years and relate to two sections of the airport to provide security, employees, guards and control in the airport, establishing a central check point and security arrangements for airport employees and other related services.

And then we have this announcement (pdf) from 2008:

CTSN Netherlands, ICTS Europe subsidiary in The Netherlands, was awarded a new contract with OpenSkies airline, British Airways’ premium carrier subsidiary, to provide High risk security operation services supported by technology at Schiphol Airport.

Hm. Looks to me like we've caught ICTS in a clear fabrication. Their denial of involvement with Schiphol should be rated C for chutzpah.

Apparently, ICTS is attempting to rely on an old dodge: It was not ICTS but a subsidiary firm which did business at Schiphol. On the same company website where ICTS claimed to have nothing to do with Schipol, we read this:

Netherlands

CTSN BV

Folkstoneweg 42, Columbus Building
1118 LM Schiphol Airport
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 20 65 650
Fax: +31 20 20 65 659
E-mail: ctsn@ictseurope.com

Location: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport

For further confirmation, see the announcement here (pdf).

Incidentally, ICTS (through another subsidiary, named Huntleigh) also runs the security at Detroit airport.

And who runs security at the airport at Lagos International Airport, a.k.a. Murtala Muhammed International Airport, a.k.a. LOS? This is where Farouk flew out to Schiphol -- presumably wearing, even then, his PETN briefs. (Oddly, this airport was modeled after Schiphol.) Farouk went through two checks; KLM (the carrier) provided the second check, but I don't know who conducted the first one. Still another ICTS subsidiary -- MUSC -- provides maritime security services for the Nigerian government. Nigeria restored relations with Israel in 1992, after a 19 year break; some accounts hold that the two governments are now quite close.

* * *

I am not attempting to provide a simple one-size-fits-all conspiracy theory to explain all of these anomalies. Let me repeat: I do not have such a theory. Undoubtedly, many of these oddities will soon be explained.

Still, at present, we have some reasonable questions that demand answers. In particular, I'd like to know why ICTS lied. If the Israeli-run security firm had not denied the undeniable, the stories about that company would have stayed mired within the murky realms of the conspiracy blogs.

But now...