Skip to comments.AP: FBI Illegally Seized Ramzi Yousef Documents From OKC Reporter's Mail
Posted on 03/14/2003 7:57:18 AM PST by JohnBerger
The FBI illegally seized a package sent between two Associated Press reporters working on an investigative series about the Oklahoma City bombing. The package contained documents related to Ramzi Yousef's al Qaeda cell in Manila, according to the Associated Press.
The package contained a laboratory report on items seized from a Manila apartment where Yousef and his conspirators, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, plotted a September 11-style attack on America. The package was part of reporter John Solomon's investigative series on possible warnings given to the U.S. about a terrorist attack sponsored by Islamic militants just prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI told AP the package "contained sensitive information that should not be made public."
According to research published on this site and elsewhere, and extensive courtroom documentation, Terry Nichols traveled to the Cebu, the Philippines, in November 1994, on a 60-day visa that expired on Jan. 21, 1995, the exact date Yousef was planning to launch Project Bojinka, a series of attacks on U.S. bound aircraft. According to "The New Jackals" by Simon Reeve and other verified information revealed during various criminal trials, Ramzi Yousef made at least one and possibly several trips to Cebu during Nichols' visit.
One phase of Bojinka involved the simultaneous detonation of a series of bombs over the Pacific, while a second phase would have had suicide pilot(s) crash commercial aircraft into U.S. landmark(s) such as the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and CIA headquarters. The plot was foiled after an accidental fire exposed the conspiracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediainfo.com ...
According to AP, the report seized included "included copies and photos of dozens of pieces of evidence gathered in the terrorism cases of Abdul Hakim Murad and Ramzi Yousef, including batteries, explosive devices, bomb fragments, a copy of a Time magazine, cell phones, and phone books."
When the truth connects Kuwaiti national and Iraqi agent Ramzi Yousef to OKlahoma City, and project Bojinka (which we saw executed on 9/11) apparently that is too much truth to handle. Why? I do not know.
My understanding is that Justice also Just capitulated in the Flight 800
propersecution of the reporter.
Don't tell me she doesn't keep blackmail stuff on her husband!!
Just yesterday I noted to Grampa Dave that they left OKC out of that beautiful timeline/scenario of a look back at World War III!!!
Take a look back at history. Specifically The Pentagon Papers.
The Nixon Administration, went to EMBARASSING legnths to keep the from being printed, including the intrusion to Ellsbergs Psychiatrist.
How is this Important/Instructive....
Because the Rand Corporation study, was a product of the JOHNSON administration, but Nixon went to the mat to protect the Office Of the Presidency itself, regardless of the right/or wrong of who was in it.
This is further evidenced by Nixon going to DC for a PhotoOp with JFK, after he stole the election, to show support after Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs.
GWB and this administration, is not protecting Clinton, he is protecting the Office. this needs to be understood, because he takes a lot of flack for not chasing Satans spawn down like the worm that he is...
I do understand this but the costs of protecting the office of president are beginning to be outweighed by the cost of the security of the American people.
Besides, when the truth comes out, won't those who cover look as bad/worse than the actual perps like Johnson and Clinton.
The keyword being 'from'.
Read his book for a better, more complete and accurate picture of the events and rationale he used in committing the OKC bombing ...
- an excerpt from the Introduction
This book, in many ways, could not have been written without MeVeigh's cooperation - which, it must be stressed, was given without condition, compensation, or any right of review or approval. But neither could it have been completed without the cooperation of scores of others who have figured in his life. Whenever possible, we have sought out corroborating information that would either support or dismiss MeVeigh's claims, and many people have been helpful in clarifying aspects of the case that have heretofore remained obscure. Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier, the two other men convicted in the bombing, were at the top of our list of desired interviews from the start, but a number of attempts to obtain their cooperation proved unsuccessful; McVeigh remains the first and only principal involved in the bombing to cooperate with journalists.
Still, in the countless hours of interviews we conducted with law-enforcement officials; relatives of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier; and friends and acquaintances of the suspects and bombing victims, we found that each new piece of the puzzle meshed with the rest, and with McVeigh's own self-portrait, into a coherent and consistent picture of the man who finally, with the publication of this book, becomes the confessed bomber of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
Who is Timothy McVeigh? We finally have the answers.
What our society does with this information remains to be seen. Surely we can learn from this tragedy; surely a better understanding of the mind behind this act can help us all come to terms with humankind's capacity for evil-and our even more remarkable capacity for healing.
Are you the same "John Berger" (with e-mail address "email@example.com") listed at the bottom of these websites:
I'm, sure that would come as news to Nichols and Fortier ...
Have *you* read McVeigh's book?
You may not *even* have to but a copy - you can find it in a lot of public libraries now!
Clever ... it probably gets by more screening/nanny-ware/site-blocking software too ...
That too. I may eventually move it to its own server, but for now that's a luxury expense I prefer to avoid.
I tend to agree with this, but not so much as to get into a big debate over it. From my research, it looks a lot easier to draw a direct line to al Qaeda than to Iraq.
I also recommend "New Jackals," which provides a pretty rounded picture of Yousef's activities, as well as a fairly extensive discussion of the Iraq angle.
The highly unlikely story from the article: The Customs Service said its agents opened the package from Manila after selecting it for routine inspection when it arrived at a Federal Express hub in Indianapolis. Agents did not open an identical package addressed to the AP's United Nations office.
Both packages contained an FBI laboratory report on materials seized from a Filipino apartment rented by convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef. The reporters were working on a research project that resulted in stories published last month about the government's concerns before April 19, 1995, that white supremacists might bomb a federal building.
"The job of Customs is to intercept smuggled contraband and collect import duties," said Tomlin, who is an attorney. "Customs has no authority to seize private correspondence where there's no suspicion it contains contraband. There certainly wasn't any such suspicion here."
So, _Jim, what gives them the right to go through our mail? Isn't that a federal crime when done by anyone else?
Or have you pretty much blown it off, ignored it and *not* read it like most conspiracy theorists?
Addressing this specific instance - the answer lies within the piece you posted ...
The next tier, then, is the court documentation detailing the whereabouts, purchses, phone calls and activities of McVeigh, Nichols and Fortier.
You been through those?
(It sounds to me like you are going to 'artfully dance in the shadows' in showing any complicity of other people, groups or foreign governments in a 'theory' of your own devising re: the OKC bombing...)
An Essay on Hypocrisy
By Timothy McVeighReprinted with permission from Media Bypass. Parthenocarpy is interested in any existing or future rebuttals of this essay.
Please contact us here to contribute.
Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc. Editor's note: Timothy McVeigh, sentenced to death for his role in the April 19, 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, penned the following essay, dated "March 1998," from his cell in the administrative maximum section of the federal prison in Florence, Colo. In a preface, McVeigh wrote "I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative -- and I rather doubt that any mainstream media would touch it. [Note that although the enclosed is very provocative, it was written to provoke thought -- and was not written with malevolent intent.]"
McVeigh appologized for the essay being handwritten, but noted his "current (unique) environment does not provide access to a typewriter, a word processor or a copier. (hell, I'm lucky they let me have a pen!), so I hope you understand why this is being submitted handwritten -- and I hope you can overcome this shortcoming."
McVeigh, whose interview with Media Bypass [February 1996] was picked up and dissected by the New York Times and major media outlets across the nation, also expressed concerns that reporting subsequent to this essay might be "printed out of context... but at least the original can be accurate."
A decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, McVeigh hereby offers his contribution to the debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq, a policy that McVeigh says is marked by a "deep hypocrisy."
The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") -- mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.Sl is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."
Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones-- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.
Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.
(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)
When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?
Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.
In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.
What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?
I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?
I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma."
When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.
Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.
These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign tartgets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.
It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.
When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone:
"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Timothy J. McVeigh
Copyright (c) 1998, Media Bypass / Alternative Media, Inc.