Special Agent Wade Ammerman once played a role in both the Al-Timimi and Aulaqi investigations. He had followed Aulaqi out of the bureau’s Washington field office. He recently wrote in the Law Enforcement Bulletin, quoting Albert Einstein, that “Setting an example is not the main means of influencing another, it is the only means.”He also quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson, “What you are shouts so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say.” Scott McClellan is very late in making his disclosures and now should be a dollar short.
FBI Special Agent Wade Ammerman, for example, testfied that on September 17, 2001, Masoud Ahmad Khan applied for a passport. On September 18, 2001, Khan left for Pakistan to go to a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp. In December 2002, Khan purchased an auto-pilot module for a radio-controlled model aircraft. Upon a search in 2003, at Khan’s residence, authorities found a copy of “The Terrorist’s Handbook.”
Maybe Special Agent Wade knows why the October 9, 2002 warrant for “911 imam” Aulaqi’s arrest was canceled the day before he arrived back in this country to finish some business.
What role has the Federal Bureau of Investigation inadvertently played in allowing the Bush Administration to tell the lies claimed by McClellan in his book?
If the anthrax mailings were thought to have involved a US citizen whose father worked at the Iraq embassy — as Ali’s lawyer suggests the FBI did — would that support or undermine the reason for invading Iraq? If they involved a former assistant of Andrew Card, the White House Chief of Staff, would that make it or more less likely the White House would direct that these issues be dealt with candidly?
Personally, I think that there was just a long-planned instance of infiltration by a dedicated and clever foe. The Administration need only be faulted for continuing to obfuscate the truth about Amerithrax. GMU’s civil liability would be determined, in part, by the candor and vigor in which they addressed these issues. ATCC fired a new, highly trained scientist the minute she complained about the lax security.
http://freeali.org/Legal/Understanding%20the%20Case/1161136847109.html
The FreeAli.org page (which I believe in the past has been maintained by Ali’s brother) states:
“Jonathan Turley
Professor at The George Washington University School of Law
Prior to leading Ali’s appeal, Professor Turley commented on Dr. Al-Timimi beliefs on Armageddon and the US Government’s case. In the truest form of defending the US Constitution, Professor Turley said that “it is never about the defendants. It was not about the racist fantasies of Brandenburg. It certainly is not about the apocalyptic fantasies of Al-Timimi. It is ultimately about us and who we are. With Al-Timimi’s conviction, we face that moment of self-definition again as his articles of speech become the test of our own articles of faith”.
Known for exposing state and federal violations of a defendant’s rights in the court room as a means by which the government can coerce a jury, Professor Turley was critical of the Government’s court room conduct. When prosecutors intimidated the jury with one of Dr. Al-Timimi’s writings authored years after Ali’s alleged criminal speech, Professor Turley commented: ‘The relevance of such statements is questionable, but the potential prejudicial impact could not be more clear.’ “
Professor Turley, I believe, would have been referring to the 2003 Columbia Shuttle remark (as I recall it, he said it was omen of the downfall of Western civilization).
Let’s consider the closer-in-time words of “911 imam” Anwar Aulaqi and Ali Al-Timimi in July and August 2001 then — or the speeches they gave in 2002 in a JIMAS [in the UK]. JIMAS pretty much involves the same IANA set of speakers and prominently features both Al-Timimi and Aulaqi. In his CD “Paradise” Aulaqi tells young martyrs about the “mansions of Paradise,” “the women of Paradise,” and “the greatest of the pleasures of Paradise.” Such speech is protected by the First Amendment but it does not mean it is not appropriately relied upon as evidence of someone’s intent. A person’s words are perhaps the best measure of that person’s intent. The defendant in court can then explain whether words were hyperbole, sarcasm, facetiousness etc.
In balancing tests in determining admissibility of evidence, how do we add the 3,000 lives to the balance? How do we factor into a determination of the relevance of apocalyptic views the lives at stake with respect to the threatened use of aerosolized anthrax on Washington, DC and New York City? On the subject of terrorist use of WMD and motive, is there anything more relevant than apocalyptic views?
Professor Turley now is focused on NSA wiretapping rather than First Amendment issues. Let’s assume for a moment the pertinent interceptions were NSA rather than FISA. Does that mean we as a country think it is okay to intercept every phone, fax and email in Europe under the program called ECHELON but that it is not okay to intercept Bin Laden’s sheik when he calls a microbiologist just feet away from the leading anthrax scientist working for the US government? What if the call is only five days after 3,000 were killed in New York City in an attack by Bin Laden? What if the interception target was only the person living abroad? Defense counsel is suggesting that, regardless, such interceptions need to be provided. Should they have to be provided if not even the prosecuting attorney knew of them? I’d like to see the Court err in favor of disclosure. It’s been 7 years now. There is a strong public policy weighing in favor of greater transparency on such issues.
But if we are to stand for justice, then how about we bring Amerithrax to a successful resolution? How about some justice for Ottilie Lundgren?